The University of San FranciscoUSF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library |Geschke Center

Doctoral Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects

2011

The relationship between cognitive moraldevelopment and attitudes toward cheating amongpreservice and in-service high school teachersMichael G. Glaser

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss

Part of the Education Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digitalrepository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of USFScholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact repository@usfca.edu.

Recommended CitationGlaser, Michael G., "The relationship between cognitive moral development and attitudes toward cheating among preservice and in-service high school teachers" (2011). Doctoral Dissertations. 183.https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/183

The University of San Francisco

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD CHEATING AMONG PRESERVICE

AND IN-SERVICE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS

A Dissertation Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Education Department of Leadership Studies

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

By Michael Glaser San Francisco

May 2011 UMI Number:

ii

© copyright 2011

Michael Glaser

All rights reserved

iii

Michael Glaser THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Dissertation Abstract

The Relationship Between Cognitive Moral Development and Attitudes Toward Cheating Among Preservice and In-Service High School Teachers

This study examined the relationship between moral reasoning and attitudes about

cheating on tests, essays, and other assignments. Moral-reasoning levels were based on

the Defining Issues Test (DIT-1), a measure of principled moral reasoning. Cheating

prevention and punishment-attitude scores were calculated based on the Cheating

Management Questionnaire (CMQ), a measure of teacher attitudes about cheating. Of

teachers, 146 in-service high school teachers and 16 preservice high school teachers

participated in the study.

T-tests were calculated between the two subgroups on moral reasoning, academic-

cheating prevention, and academic-cheating punishment. Intercorrelations were

calculated between the 3 measures for the in-service teachers. Supplementary analyses

on the in-service-teacher group were conducted using demographic variables.

Several noteworthy findings of this study were that female teachers scored higher

than male teachers on moral reasoning, and demonstrated more stringent attitudes about

implementing cheating-prevention and -punishment procedures. The differences on

moral reasoning and prevention were statistically significant. The in-service-teacher

group scored higher on the DIT than the preservice-teacher group. A 9.24-point

difference was observed between the two groups. In addition, the in-service teachers

showed more stringent attitudes toward punishing cheaters than did preservice teachers.

Future studies can build on these findings by disaggregating the DIT and CMQ

data according to school districts and by considering the relationship between moral-

iv

reasoning levels and variables such as class size, teacher-to-student ratio and

socioeconomic status. The significance of the study and implications for policy and

practice are also discussed.

v

This dissertation, written under the direction of the candidate’s dissertation committee

and approved by the members of the committee, has been presented to and accepted by

the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Education. The content and research methodology presented in this

work represents the work of the candidate alone.

Michael Glaser____________________________ June 18, 2011

Candidate

Dissertation Committee

Patricia Mitchell, Ph.D._____________________ Chairperson

June 18, 2011

Betty Taylor, Ph.D. ________________________

June 18, 2011

Brian Gerrard, Ph.D. _______________________ June 18, 2011

vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Brian Gerrard, Dr. Betty Taylor, and Dr.

Patricia Mitchell for their expert guidance and also for their patience. I would also like to

thank Dr. Ellen Herda for introducing me to an extraordinary world of thinkers who bring

a smile to my face. I would also like to thank two scholars, Dr. Deborah Nolan of the

University of California, Berkeley, who provided me with expert insight, and Dr. Donald

McCabe of Rutgers University, who gave me a call to tell me that I was on the right

track. Most of all, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Patricia Mitchell, who told

me that things were going to work out fine and I believed her. She has been immensely

insightful and supportive throughout the process and I appreciate it. And finally, I want

to thank my wife, Yoko Oda, for living with me.

vii

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................xi

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................1

Purpose of the Study...............................................................................................4

Theoretical Rationale..............................................................................................4

Level I—Preconventional Morality.........................................................................7

Level II—Conventional Morality............................................................................8

Level III—Postconventional Morality.....................................................................9

Background and Need for the Study ..................................................................... 13

Research Questions .............................................................................................. 18

Research Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 19

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study........................................................... 19

Significance of the Study...................................................................................... 22

Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 23

Researcher’s Background ..................................................................................... 25

Summary.............................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................... 29

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 29

Classroom Management and Academic Misconduct ............................................. 29

viii

Causes of Academic Misconduct .......................................................................... 31

The Internet .......................................................................................................... 35

Academic Misconduct at the College Level .......................................................... 40

Academic Misconduct at the High School Level................................................... 41

Cheating-Prevention Policy and Practice .............................................................. 43

Moral-Reasoning Levels....................................................................................... 47

In-Service Teachers .............................................................................................. 47

Preservice Teachers .............................................................................................. 48

Undergraduate Education Majors.......................................................................... 49

Character Education in Teacher-Education Programs............................................ 51

Summary.............................................................................................................. 52

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 55

Restatement of the Research Problem................................................................... 55

Research Design ................................................................................................... 55

Research Setting: High School.............................................................................. 56

Research Setting: College ..................................................................................... 57

Population and Sample: High School.................................................................... 58

Population and Sample: College ........................................................................... 61

Instrumentation: Defining Issues Test (DIT)......................................................... 61

Measurement: Defining Issues Test (DIT) ............................................................ 64

Validity: Defining Issues Test (DIT).................................................................... 64

Reliability: Defining Issues Test (DIT) ................................................................. 66

Instrumentation: Cheating Management Questionnaire (CMQ)............................. 66

ix

Measurement: ....................................................................................................... 68

Human-Subjects Approval.................................................................................... 70

Pilot Procedures.................................................................................................... 70

Data Collection..................................................................................................... 72

Data Analysis: Defining Issues Test...................................................................... 72

Data Analysis: Cheating Management Questionnaire............................................ 73

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ................................................................ 74

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 74

Restatement of the Problem.................................................................................. 74

Description of Participants.................................................................................... 74

Findings ............................................................................................................... 75

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 77

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 79

Summary.............................................................................................................. 81

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

FINAL REMARKS.............................................................................................. 83

Discussion ............................................................................................................ 83

Implications for Policy and Practice...................................................................... 89

Recommendations for Future Research................................................................. 91

Final Remarks ...................................................................................................... 94

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX A SAMPLE DEFINING ISSUES TEST ITEM ....................................... 116

APPENDIX B PARTICIPATION REQUEST EMAIL................................................ 118

x

APPENDIX C PARTICIPATION REMINDER EMAIL............................................. 120

APPENDIX D CONSENT COVER LETTER............................................................. 121

APPENDIX E INFORMATION SHEET..................................................................... 123

APPENDIX F RESEARCH SUBJECTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS...................................... 125

APPENDIX G IRBPHS—UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPROVAL

LETTER............................................................................................................. 127

APPENDIX H IRBPHS—BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY APPROVAL LETTER........ 128

APPENDIX I CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL DEVELOPMENT

APPROVAL LETTER ....................................................................................... 129

APPENDIX J TABLES J1–J4 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND ONE-

WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ................................................................... 130

xi

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Characteristics of Old and New Plagiarism ....................................................... 14

Table 2 A Sampling of Study Support and Custom Paper Websites ............................... 39

Table 3 McCabe’s Results on Cheating Behavior and the Internet (1999–2001) ............ 39

Table 4 Key Results of the Josephson Studies (2008) .................................................... 43

Table 5 Relationship of Research Questions and Cheating Management Questionnaire

items...................................................................................................................... 68

Table 6 Demographic Characteristics of In-service (N = 130) and Preservice Teachers

(N = 16) ................................................................................................................. 76

Table 7 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for In-service

Teachers on Moral Reasoning, Academic Cheating Prevention, and Academic

Cheating Punishment (N = 130) ............................................................................. 77

Table 8 In-service Teacher Gender Differences on Moral Reasoning, Academic

Cheating Prevention, and Academic Cheating Punishment..................................... 79

Table 9 In-service and Preservice Teacher Differences on Moral Reasoning,

Academic Cheating Prevention, and Academic Cheating Punishment .................... 80

xii

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Kohlberg’s three levels and six stages of moral reasoning.................................7

Figure 2. An advertisement for Paper Masters, a Division of E Publishing, Inc.............. 38

Figure 3. Gender and main teaching areas...................................................................... 59

Figure 4. Number of years teaching and main teaching subjects..................................... 60

Figure 5. Defining Issues Test scores clustered around type indicators. ......................... 63

Figure 6. Cheating Management Questionnaire sample page. ........................................ 67

1

Chapter I

The Research Problem

Introduction

Students, teachers, administrators, economists, historians, scientists, and other

academics are members of an educational community known as the academy. This

community establishes standards based on common goals that advance knowledge that is

beneficial to society (Plato, trans. 1997). Since the time of ancient Greeks, education has

been understood as a means of ordering and enriching the social domain and the life of its

citizenry. Plato spoke of political systems as a means to engender intellectual, moral, and

civic education. Plato rhetorically asked, “What great benefit (does) the state derive from

the training by which it educates its citizens, and the reply will be perfectly

straightforward. The good education they have received will make them good men”

(Plato, trans. 1997). Dewey (1916), in the opening chapter of the classic work Democracy

and Education spoke of education in the broadest sense, as a necessary component in the

process of bringing “social continuity of life” (p. 3). According to Dewey, education

endeavors to broaden understanding while promoting the importance of social rules,

values, and standards of behavior. By maintaining integrity in the academic process, the

academy can pursue a central facet of its mission: to introduce and reinforce the

importance of honesty when producing and discussing academic work.

The cornerstone of authentic learning in all academic disciplines is honesty.

Academic honesty is essential to good teaching and learning. Teachers have traditionally

been held to the high standards of moral and professional conduct. To this day, children

are routinely entrusted to the care of teachers. Teachers, in turn, are expected to hold

2

their students to high standards of moral and academic conduct. Beginning early in the

colonial period, American schools incorporated a doctrine known as in loco parentis

from British common law. Latin for “in the place of a parent,” in loco parentis is a legal

doctrine that extends parental status to the schoolteacher. During the mid-19th century

public school curriculum deemphasized moral and religious education. Although the

secularization of public school took hold, it did not diminish the teachers’ responsibility

to establish and maintain high standards of academic conduct.

The broader notions of character education and classroom management provide a

context for the moral aspect of professional responsibility. Two exemplars from the

literature serve to position these ideas. The first is Lickona’s definition of character

education as, “the deliberate effort to cultivate virtue … [those] affirmed by nearly all

philosophical, cultural, and religious traditions: wisdom, justice, fortitude, self-control,

love, a positive attitude, hard work, integrity, gratitude, and humility” (Lickona, 2004,

p. xxv). The second is the link between classroom management, classroom instruction,

and morality. Campbell (2008) wrote,

Ethical teachers should be moral agents and moral models, not moralistic

activists. Their professional responsibility in this moral sense is an immediate

and direct one that honors the public’s trust in them and does not stray beyond the

boundaries of their mandate. It is simply to hold themselves accountable for how

they treat the students in their care and how they cultivate for them schooling

experiences … that are reflected in the best of societal values, norms, and laws

and that parallel most parents’ reasonable expectations of public schooling.

(pp. 274–275).

3

This view of the teacher’s responsibility describes an activity that promotes good conduct

by modeling good behavior and by creating an environment that supports academic and

emotional learning. In that context, student behavior is managed in two distinct ways.

The more general is the process of socialization and conditioning that promotes good

behavior; the second is conditioning that discourages aberrant behavior by leveling

punishments against students when they misbehave (Brophy, 1986; Kounin, 1970).

Effective classroom managers develop trusting relationships with their students. They

communicate explicit connections between cheating infractions and the consequences

that follow. This involves the implementation of disciplinary procedures with fairness

and consistency (Brophy, 1986).

Effective cheating management is essential at the high school and college levels.

By all available measures, incidents of cheating are on the rise and reaching

unprecedented levels in the United States (Josephson, 2010; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

The Josephson Institute’s Survey on the Ethics of American Youth 2010 reported that

64% of 43,000 high school students in public and private schools admitted to cheating on

a test in the year prior to taking the survey. More than 1 in 3 said they used the Internet

to plagiarize an assignment. According to the Center for Academic Integrity (2011) the

Internet has made cheating more convenient. Responses to Josephson’s survey indicated

that students didn’t know how to use the Internet for academic purposes, and that in some

cases they don’t care to learn (Josephson, 2010). There is a growing concern that as the

cost of technology decreases and information access increases, the problem of academic

dishonesty will spread ever further, sullying the notion of copyright protection and the

sanctity of original work.

4

Purpose of the Study

The current study focused on the growing problem of academic dishonesty. It

investigated high school teachers’ belief regarding the seriousness of the problem and

their approach to countering it in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to explore

preservice and in-service high school teachers’ cognitive moral reasoning levels and how

those levels relate to (a) the importance that they attribute to the problem of academic

dishonesty, and (b) their readiness to take proactive and reactive measures to counter the

problem. Exploring the relationship between reasoning levels and beliefs about the

problem of cheating and how to deal with it compliments the existing literature and

provides researchers, policymakers, and faculty members with insight into the

relationship between teachers’ moral reasoning and their attitudes about dealing with

cheating behaviors.

Theoretical Rationale

This research draws on Kohlberg’s cognitive-moral-development theory as its

theoretical foundation. For over half a century Kohlberg’s theory, in various forms, has

stimulated research about morality and moral development (Cummings, Dyas, Maddux &

Kochman, 2001). Kohlberg’s work is based on Piaget’s (1932) study on the development

of moral reasoning in children. In the 1950s, when Piaget was becoming popular among

American psychologists, the dominant view of moral development was behavioral.

Moral development was seen as the process of adapting to social norms and adopting

cultural mores. Conformity was the catchword of the time. Piaget challenged the idea

that ethics were the result of external influences (Durkheim, 1925/1973). For Piaget, the

first type of morality seen in young children was a morality of constraint. Children

5

behaved in ways devised to avoid punishment. As children developed more autonomy

they transitioned into a morality of cooperation and began to see rules separate from adult

authority. Through interaction with peers, children grew into a social system where rules

were viewed as mutually beneficial. Social and cognitive skills enabled children to abide

by internalized rules. They began to base their judgments on intention. For example,

when Child A compared a boy who broke several dishes while trying to help his mother,

to a boy who broke only one dish while trying to steal cookies, Child A considered the

first boy’s action more reprehensible due the amount of damage done. An older child

begins to judge wrongness in terms of the intentions underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p.

137).

Kohlberg (1969) adopted four key components of Piaget’s theory of morality

development: (a) Like Piaget, Kohlberg focused on cognition, the thinking process, and

representations by which people construct reality; (b) Like Piaget, Kohlberg assumed that

there would be stages in moral development; (c) Like Piaget, Kohlberg posed ethical

problems to his subjects and collected data on their responses; (d) Like Piaget, Kohlberg

looked for differences in the moral problem solving strategies used by people at different

ages (as cited in Rest & Narvaez, 1994, p. 3). Kohlberg (1981, 1984) identified with the

Kantian deontological notion that ethical systems evaluated morality based on the

presupposition that certain truths exist in an external moral realm. Kohlberg’s early

research (1958, 1967) focused on moral development in student populations. Kohlberg

combined studies on cognitive and moral development when considering ethical decision

making. In Kohlberg’s framework, growth in cognitive development creates a state of

readiness necessary for moral development (as cited in Walker, 1988).

6

Implicit to Kohlberg’s model is the idea that ethical reasoning moves along a

developmental pathway from a less developed moral position to a more sophisticated one

(Kohlberg , 1969). The progression from lower to higher stages indicates that an

individual’s ability to make ethical judgments becomes less dependent on outside

influences. Individuals with a stronger internal locus of control are likely to have higher

levels of moral development, and are less likely to engage in unethical behavior.

Kohlberg and other cognitive developmental theorists depict moral reasoning as a logical

process through which an individual conceptualizes and evaluates moral conflicts—

usually referred to as moral judgment (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Piaget, 1932; Rest,

1986). One way of understanding the developmental progression of moral judgment is in

terms of the relationship between the self and society’s moral rules and expectations

(Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Moral perspective progresses from rules based on social

expectations to rules based on self-expectation. Not all adults progress to the perspective

where the self is differentiated from the expectations of others and able to define moral

values in terms of self-chosen principles, where reciprocity and cooperation involve

diverse points of view.

In an early study Kohlberg (1958) tracked the progress of 58 teenagers,

interviewing them in 3-year cycles for a 12-year duration. Based on the boys’ responses

to hypothetical moral dilemmas, Kohlberg delineated a sequence of phases of moral

development that evolve, during periods of cognitive disequilibrium and contradiction,

into stages that progress from childhood to adulthood. The levels and substages are used

as a framework that delineates how people think about moral dilemmas. Each new stage

is an elaboration of the previous one, “which is what fixes the sequence of the stages”

7

(Rest & Narvaez, 1994, p. 3). As moral reasoning advances, the basis for making moral

judgments advances from egocentricity to reciprocity and a support of universal human

rights. At the highest level, moral judgments depend on abstract, formal reasoning and

the ability to consider moral issues from diverse perspectives. As people pass through

the stages they become increasingly independent of outside influences. Their locus of

control shifts from the external to the internal.

Figure 1. Kohlberg’s three levels and six stages of moral reasoning. From Stages of Moral Development, by L. Kohlberg, 2001, retrieved from http://www .integratedsociopsychology.net/stages-moral_development.html. Permission to reproduce granted by Psychology Press Ltd.

Level I—Preconventional Morality

Level 1, the preconventional, is characterized by externalized morals. Children at

this level are

8

responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but

interpret these labels either in terms of hedonistic consequences (punishment,

reward, exchange of favors) or in terms of the physical power of those who

enunciate the rules and labels. (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 54)

The preconventional level consists of Stage 1, the punishment and obedience orientation

in which the physical consequences of action determine goodness or badness, regardless

of the meaning or values of the consequences. Stage 2 is referred to as the instrumental-

relativist orientation in which the right action consists of that which satisfies one’s own

needs and on occasion, the needs of others. In Stage 2, people might personalize a

decision not to cheat as, “I won’t cheat because I’ll be punished if I do.” Gradually, a

positive self-interest is realized and they frame the issue as, “I will cheat to get a better

score.”

Level II—Conventional Morality

The conventional level is a shared viewpoint of the participants in relationship to

a group (Kohlberg, 1984). This level is characterized by quasi-internalized morals. The

level consists of Stages 3 and 4, where moral conflicts are viewed and resolved in social

terms rather than in individual terms. Stage 3 is referred to as the interpersonal

concordance or “good boy–nice girl” orientation where the value of behavior corresponds

to that which pleases others and is approved by them. Stage 4 is characterized by “law

and order” obedience to authority and the maintenance of the social order. Reasoning at

this phase is, “I won’t cheat because if I get caught my parents will be ashamed of me.”

This level of understanding corresponds to a broader social understanding of right and

wrong, “I won’t cheat because if everyone cheats, it isn’t fair to me or anyone else.”

9

Level III—Postconventional Morality

The postconventional level consists of Stages 5 and 6, where values and ethical

beliefs are internalized. At this level, which is rarely fully obtained, moral judgments are

textured by the ability to consider moral issues from diverse perspectives. Social rules

are viewed as relative and situational. In Stage 5 right actions tend to be defined in terms

of individual rights and standards, which have been critically examined and agreed upon

by the larger society. In Stage 6, the universal-ethical-principle orientation, right is

defined by the decision of conscience in accordance with ethical principles that appeal to

logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. Self-chosen ethical principles

at this level indicate an ability to construct ethical frameworks and belief systems apart

from conventional social norms. Trevino and Youngblood (1990), link independent

moral development to a decrease in unethical behavior,

More adept individuals at ethical reasoning are more likely to make judgments

based on principles they chose as opposed to those gained through peer pressures

and other outside influences. Individuals with higher levels of moral development

are less likely to engage in unethical behavior. (p. 22).

Kohlberg’s framework is associated broadly to the field of normative ethics, the branch

of philosophical ethics that investigates how to act morally. Kohlberg’s work is also

associated with descriptive ethics to the extent that human beings’ actually develop

morals through the descriptive analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Following

Rawls (1971), Kohlberg (1984) argued that moral judgment is grounded in justice

reasoning—that individual moral action cannot be defined outside of a broader social

context.

10

Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized from a variety of vantage points. Walker

Pitts, Hennig, and Matsuba (1995) suggested that Kohlberg’s model is no longer a

progressive force. They argued that the type of reasoning measured in Kohlberg’s moral

dilemmas differs from the reasoning that occurs in real-life situations. If that is the case,

measuring the way people think about actual, everyday moral situations based on

Kohlberg’s assessment tool would produce skewed results. Other scholars have criticized

Kohlberg’s theory as being exclusive to liberal, Western concepts of individuality (Miller

& Bersoff, 1992). Flanagan and Jackson (1987) viewed the theory as being narrowly

focused on the singular concept of justice. Joy (1986) implied that Kohlberg’s

interpretation of Piaget’s notion of justice was too narrowly defined. Leming (1978)

reported that lower levels of reasoning were activated to solve practical dilemmas when

compared to solving hypothetical dilemmas. They claimed that these results showed that

Kohlberg’s theory was better applied to hypothetical situations.

Kohlberg’s theory (1969) was developed based on research using male

participants; Gilligan argued that women and men have different moral-reasoning skills

that affect their attitudes and interactions with others. Gilligan contended that Kohlberg’s

justice ethic was biased against care, the dominant ethic for women (Gilligan &

Attanucci, 1988), Gilligan (1977) stated,

In [women’s] conception, the moral problem arises from conflicting

responsibilities rather than from competing rights and requires for its resolution a

mode of thinking that is contextual and narrative rather than formal and abstract.

The conception of morality as concerned with the activity of care centers moral

development around the understanding or responsibility and relationships, just as

11

the conception of morality as fairness ties moral development to the

understanding of rights and rules. (p. 19).

Rest and Narvaez (1994), neo-Kohlbergian scholars proposed an expanded model

of moral judgment based on Kohlberg’s theory. Rest’s theory is based on the premise

that people at different stages of development interpret moral dilemmas differently. Rest

argued that Kohlberg’s levels and stages are not indicators of an abrupt separation

between individuals, or groups of individuals, at different developmental levels. Rather,

the stages are “ways of organizing cooperation among individuals” (Rest & Narvaez,

1994, p. 8). The stages are seen as underlying conceptions that are tacitly held; they are a

basic way that individuals respond to and negotiate around ethical problems. Rest and

Narvaez explained:

We assume that the conceptions of cooperation are deep structures, that they are

among the individual’s fundamental categories for interpreting the social world …

[that] the conceptions of cooperation underlying the stages are default schemas—

that is, they are the spontaneous and natural ways that people make sense of social

situations. (emphasis in original, Rest & Narvaez, 1994, p. 8)

Rest’s schemas follow a progressive developmental pattern but allow for a more

gradual transition across the range of moral development. In the neo-Kohlbergian model,

the schemas are: (a) Personal interest, which corresponds to Kohlberg’s Stages 2 and 3,

(b) Maintaining norms, which corresponds to Stage 4, and (c) Postconventional thinking,

which corresponds to Stages 5 and 6 (Rest, 1986; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999

1986). The schemas are represented as “shifting distributions” that cluster around the

stages (Rest et al., 1999).

12

Bedrock schemas have been developed as a way of understanding moral judgment

(Rest et al., 1999). The three schemas are personal-interest schema, maintaining-norms

schema, and postconventional schema.

1. Personal-interest schema describes individuals lacking in sociocentric

perspective. Decisions are based primarily in the personal stake of the

decision maker, stressing notions such as survival and “getting ahead”

(Narvaez & Bock, 2002). Specific to education, this describes teachers

striving for learner conformity with little willingness to make adjustments for

individual needs.

2. Maintaining-norms schema signifies an increase in an individual’s ability to

recognize societywide cooperation. It emphasizes rules that are clear and

consistent and apply to everyone. The social system is imperative (i.e., the

hierarchical nature of a school) along with maintaining the established norms.

3. Postconventional schema is based on four specific components:

(a) the primacy of moral criteria;

(b) the notion that there are idealized ways for humans to interrelate;

(c) ideals are both shareable and open to justification and scrutiny; and

(d) there is recognition of full reciprocity of social norms.

Postconventional schema is associated with teacher judgment, such as viewing

curriculum from multiple perspectives and considering the moral implications

of instructional choices (Johnson, 2008, p. 431).

Rest (1979) and other cognitive scientists argued that Kohlberg’s method of

eliciting open-ended self-reported explanations is limited to the subject’s ability to

13

construct verbal arguments. As a result, Rest (1979) devised the Defining Issues Test

(DIT), a psychometric instrument based on Kohlberg’s moral-stage typology to test moral

cognitive reasoning. The DIT calls on schema and elicits beliefs and opinions at different

stages of development.

Background and Need for the Study

Plagiarism has a long and colorful history. The etymology of the word

plagiarism, meaning literary theft, derives from the English word “plagiary” meaning

“one who wrongfully takes another’s words or ideas” (Park, 2002). Differentiating

between influence and plagiarism can be a murky and difficult pursuit. It is said that

Emerson, who aspired to compose purely original work, conceded the fact, as he quipped,

“All my best ideas were stolen by the ancients” (Park, 2010, p. 43). Copying the words

of another is probably as old as writing itself, but until the advent of printing presses and

publication, it remained a minor editorial concern. At the beginning of the 17th century

the Elizabethan playwright, Johnson, used the word plagiary to denote taking another’s

work for one’s own. Plagiarism increased as more works were published and widely

read. During the mid-18th century copyright laws were instituted and formal charges

were exacted against plagiarists by the end of that century. In the succeeding 2 centuries

plagiarism and an array of other fraudulent scholarship became commonplace.

In 1964 sociologist Bowers published the first in-depth and far-reaching study on

academic misconduct. Bower’s study investigated cheating behavior among 5,000

college students on 99 campuses and reported that 50% of those surveyed had engaged in

some form of academic misconduct since enrolling in college. Since Bower’s

groundbreaking work, many studies have confirmed an increase in cheating on tests,

14

fabricating research, and reusing academic documents (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). In a

longitudinal study, McCabe and Bowers (1994) recorded a dramatic increase in self-

reported cheating among undergraduate college students. Those results were confirmed

in a concurrent longitudinal study conducted by Diekhoff et al. (1996), who found similar

trends in cheating between 1984 and 1994.

The increase in cheating is being aggravated by easy information access on the

Internet. Internet use is changing the way that people read and think about information.

It appears that frequent reading on the Internet may be interfering with the ability to

concentrate on traditional print material. As a result, an easier sort of plagiarism is taking

hold. Students can easily “cut and paste” products. This new order of plagiarism can be

accomplished without opening a book.

Examples of old and new plagiarism are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of Old and New Plagiarism

Old plagiarism New plagiarism

Generally required human contact to acquire materials

Generally does not require human contact

Material copied from a hardbound source Material copied or downloaded from electronic sources

Plagiarized from sources that were published and copyrighted

Plagiarized from sources that are not necessarily published and do not always claim copyright

Required acquisition of hard copies Does not require hard copies

Required time and effort to search for content Online searches require less effort and provide quicker results

Papers had to be handwritten or typed out Materials are copy and pasted or downloaded and printed out

15

Although technology has offered new possibilities for teaching and learning, the

digital landscape has posed serious ethical challenges to the academe. The phrase

unintentional plagiarism refers to the segment of the student population that has

inadequate knowledge of writing conventions and “plagiarize” due to a lack of skills or to

a misunderstanding of the rules for documenting sources. The research process can be

complicated and confusing; integrating external source material into written work is

challenging (Wilhoit, 1994). According to Wilhoit, “Few students enter college fully

understanding the relationship between plagiarism and the rules about quoting,

paraphrasing, and documenting material” (p. 162). In many cases, students are

academically unprepared to face the challenges of college-level writing.

The confusion about what constitutes plagiarism may result in part from the

popularity of cooperative learning models. Cooperative learning, based on constructivist

learning theory, provides a framework for learning as a collaborative experience.

According to Dewey (1916, 1938), learning takes place when students work together in

meaningful situations through task-centered interaction in social networks. In social-

constructivist frameworks, learners complete tasks by critically manipulating ideas and

synthesizing disparate notions into meaningful knowledge. In the process, groups of

students become what Dewey referred to as a learning community based on democratic

principles. In their work on the development of online learning communities, Palloff and

Pratt (2005) likened critical collaborative learning to collectivist cultural models. In such

a learning context the sharing of ideas comes naturally and students develop a more fluid

notion of what is considered to be intellectual property. In classes that encourage

collaboration, students work together in groups and help one another develop shared

16

concepts without critically assessing the ethical implications of mutual ownership of the

work (West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004). Different cultural mores can also foster

confusion about the ownership of academic work. Langlais (2006) referenced the case of

China, where the notion of copyrights and intellectual property are more lax than in the

West and cited cases where copying ideas directly from the text is considered ethically

neutral. International students who are accustomed to differing academic conventions

may not view plagiarism as an ethical issue at all (Josephson, 2010).

Addressing academic misconduct is the teacher’s job. Reviewing written work

and monitoring the classroom while proctoring examinations are considered job-related

prosocial behaviors. Some instructors are determined to catch every transgression.

Others are more lax, believing that the teacher’s job is to plan, deliver, and assess; not to

act as academic constable. Research on professional people in various fields revealed

that individuals with higher moral reasoning demonstrated job-related prosocial

behaviors. Examples of these finding include better clinical performance ratings in

nursing, medicine, and dentistry (Thoma, 2006); preference for altruistic law applications

in legal work (Landsman & McNeel, 2004); the likelihood of fraud detection by auditors

(Ponemon & Gabhart, 1994); and the willingness to inform superiors of employee wrong-

doing in law enforcement (Arnold & Ponemon, 1991). Ponemon (1992) conducted a

cross-sectional, longitudinal study on the ethical reasoning levels of certified public

accountants (CPAs). Ponemon found that individuals with higher moral-reasoning scores

were more responsive to ethical dilemmas that are not well defined by external rules and

ethical mores. Participants in that study were more likely to frame their ethical

judgments independent of outside influences. Findings consistently linked higher levels

17

of moral decision making to ethical decision making. Richmond (2001) confirmed those

findings in a study that measured the relationship between moral reasoning and ethical

decision making in accounting students. Sixty-eight students were tested. Results

indicated that students with higher incidence of principled moral reasoning were more

sensitive to the ethical vagaries posed in vignettes about business dealings.

Studies have found similar patterns among educators. Chang (1994) found

correlations between high levels of moral reasoning and good classroom practice. Chang

suggested that teachers with higher moral-reasoning levels better accommodated different

viewpoints and helped students understand the issue of academic honesty from multiple

perspectives. Johnston and Lubomudrov (1987) reported that teachers with higher levels

of moral reasoning were more democratic in their methods of exacting discipline by

involving students in rule making and promoting understanding of the rules. According

to their study, teachers with lower levels of moral reasoning viewed rules simply as a

means of maintaining social order. Hilton (as cited in Rest & Narvaez, 1994) observed

that teachers with higher reasoning scores were more friendly and garnered higher respect

from students. Guthrie, King, and Palmer (2000) confirmed that notion, indicating that

teachers who call on higher levels of moral reasoning were more likely to make decisions

that supported the learning of underperforming students.

A number of studies on moral reasoning among teachers reported that both

preservice and in-service teachers reason at lower levels than their peers in college and at

the workplace. Diessner (1991) reviewed 30 studies that used the Moral Judgment

Interview measure (MJI) and the DIT to measure teachers’ moral-reasoning levels. The

MJI employed open-ended interview questions to measure expressive moral reasoning.

18

The DIT measured receptive moral reasoning that is activated through rating and ranking

responses to moral dilemmas. Diessner found that preservice and in-service teachers

were reasoning at the principled level 50% or less of the time. Cummings, Maddux,

Maples, and Torres-Rivera (2004) confirmed those findings. In a study that compared

the moral-reasoning levels of a group of graduate teacher-education students with a norm

group of other graduate students, the teacher-education student-group means were

significantly lower than the norm-group means. Cummings et al. (2004) wrote, “This

finding supports earlier studies that indicate lower moral reasoning scores of in-service

and pre-service teachers” (2004, p. 10).

These findings are somewhat disturbing. It is generally understood that the

teacher is responsible for maintaining academic standards. Teachers are expected to

check student work for plagiarism, and to protect the reputation of the educational

institution and the sanctity of original work. It is their job to teach and to safeguard

learning. If teachers are reasoning at lower levels it may be the case that they are less

concerned with promoting high standards of academic integrity. The present study

investigated the relationship between teachers’ moral reasoning, demographic variables,

and attitudes about the problem of cheating; it queried whether differences in moral

reasoning corresponded to more or less forgiving attitudes toward cheaters and cheating

behaviors.

Research Questions

This study addressed the following questions.

1. What is the relationship between high school teachers’ moral reasoning and

their attitudes toward cheating prevention and cheating punishment?

19

2. Are there differences between preservice and in-service teachers’ moral

reasoning and their attitudes toward cheating prevention and cheating

punishment?

Research Hypotheses

The above questions provide context for two hypotheses;

H1: In-service teachers with higher moral-reasoning scores will be more likely to

implement proactive and reactive measures to reduce cheating than in-service teachers

with lower reasoning scores.

H2: Preservice teachers with higher moral-reasoning scores will be more likely to

implement proactive and reactive measures to reduce cheating than preservice teachers

with lower moral-reasoning scores.

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations. Delimitations are those characteristics or elements selected by the

researcher to define the boundaries of a study. Creswell (2003) discussed delimitations

as the intentional narrowing of a population or other variables so they fit a specific

research design. This researcher made conscious decisions to delimit the sample

population, the types and variables to be considered, the type of data collection

instruments to be used, and the type of theoretical framework to organize the data and

interpret the findings.

1. The scope of the study was narrowed by the participation of teachers and

teaching candidates who met certain criterion. Subjects were invited to

participate based on their type of employment or their matriculation status in a

teacher-education program. Candidates who met the other qualifications, but

20

were taking a leave of absence from school, were precluded from

participation. The two subgroups of teachers that participated in this study

were high school teachers who possessed a single-subject teaching credential

in the State of California and preservice teachers who were enrolled in a

single-subject teacher-credentialing program at an accredited university in the

State of California. The target population of this study was further

circumscribed to high school teachers in the Bay area of California and to

graduate students at campuses throughout the state.

2. Three categories of variables were considered. They were demographic

characteristics, moral-reasoning levels, and attitudinal scores.

3. These data were collected through test and survey questions designed to elicit

ranked and rated responses on a Likert grid. The DIT and the Cheating

Management Questionnaire (CMQ) were not designed to elicit rich

descriptions or textured perceptions.

4. The theoretical interpretive framework was established by Kohlberg (1969,

1982) and evolved during the course of Kohlberg’s career. The basic premise

of Kohlberg’s theory is that ethical reasoning moves along a developmental

pathway from a less developed moral position to a more sophisticated one.

The progression from lower to higher stages indicates that an individual’s

ability to make ethical judgments becomes less dependent on outside

influences. The ability to generalize from this sample to the general

population depends on the extent to which the present sample has

representative characteristics of the larger population.

21

Limitations. As with all studies, this study was subject to limitations that can

potentially bias conclusions drawn from the dataset. According to Creswell (2003), all

studies have limitations including a decreased generalizability of findings due to potential

weaknesses of the study design. Fraenkel and Wallen (2003) defined generalizability as

the “degree to which a sample represents the population of interest” (p. 104). Three

categories of limitations that may affect the outcomes of this study are listed below:

1. The sample population for the study was selected based on the criterion that

they were confronting the problem of academic dishonesty in the high school

classroom or that they would have to confront the problem after obtaining

their teaching credential and gaining employment. The importance of these

findings may be limited to preservice and in-service high school teacher

populations in California.

2. The reliability of the data generated by questions on the CMQ, an instrument

the researcher designed and developed, may limit the generalizability of these

results. Although the CMQ was piloted, the testing conditions during the pilot

were not identical to the testing circumstances during the general study. In the

case of the pilot study, teachers who were acquainted with the researcher were

given a hard copy of the questionnaire. Some of the questionnaire items were

reworded or reordered as an outcome of the pilot study.

3. Social desirability bias, the overreporting of socially expected opinions, is the

tendency of respondents to reply in a way they believe is acceptable to others.

Due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, some of the respondents may have

given intentionally misleading or socially desirable answers (LaBeff, Clark,

22

Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990). A similar possibility is that respondents may have

given careless answers that did not reflect a well-considered opinion.

4. Rest (1979) disagreed with Kohlberg’s (1969) position that the form and the

content of moral arguments were distinct. Rest (1979) contended that the

close relationship between assessing moral dilemmas and the content of the

dilemmas itself might bias the subject’s response on the DIT and was a

limitation to that measurement.

Significance of the Study

With the prevalence of academic dishonesty persisting at considerably high

levels, it is important to consider the teachers’ ability to maintain academic honesty in

their practice. The study is critical, largely because teachers seem to be expected to be

capable of mature deliberation when they make decisions that affect the lives of their

students. Commonly, parents, administrators and students are charged with establishing a

safe environment where students can peacefully coexist and learn. Teachers are

responsible for lesson planning, content delivery and the assessment of student work.

Assessment is generally understood as the formative and summative evaluation of subject

mastery. In many districts for a teacher to conduct meaningful assessment, they need to

establish and maintain high standards of academic honesty. If the standard for honest

academic honesty is compromised, if students cheat or plagiarize, the teacher may be

assessing someone else’s work and the entire teaching and learning framework is

compromised.

This study contributed to the literature on moral reasoning and the treatment of

academic dishonesty by exploring the relationship between reasoning levels and the

23

commitment to manage the problem of cheating. Findings on whether a relationship

exists between these variables, and the importance of those relationships, will provide

researchers and practitioners with new insights into high school teachers’ disposition

toward student-cheating behaviors.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined to provide the reader with

additional background knowledge associated with educational terminology.

Academic dishonesty: The Center for Academic Integrity (2011) at Duke

University defines academic dishonesty as dishonest behavior related to academic

achievement including cheating, plagiarism, lying, deception and any other form of

advantage unfairly obtained by one student over others. Academic dishonesty is a

complex issue (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). The standards that constitute academically

dishonest behaviors often vary depending on the institutional context (LaBeff et al.,

1990). Pavela (1997) identified four general areas of academic dishonesty: (a) using

unauthorized materials on an assignment; (b) fabricating information, references, or

results; (c) committing plagiarism; and (d) enabling other students to engage in academic

dishonesty. For the purposes of this study, the terms academic dishonesty, academic

misconduct, and cheating will be used interchangeably.

Academic integrity: According to the Center for Academic Integrity (1999),

academic integrity focuses on five values. The value of academic honesty is primary and

a prerequisite to the other four: trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.

24

Cheating: Cheating is defined as “the attempt, by deceptive or fraudulent means,

to represent oneself as possessing knowledge. In testing specifications, cheating is

violating the rules” (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003, p. 3).

Dispositions: Dispositions are attributed characteristics of a teacher that represent

the trend of a teacher’s judgments and actions in ill-structured contexts (situations in

which there is more than one way to solve a dilemma). Further, it is assumed that these

dispositions, trends in teacher judgments and actions, develop over time when teachers

participate in deliberate professional-education programs (Reiman & Johnson, 2003).

Ethical thinking: For the purpose of this study, the term ethical thinking refers to

the process that guides a person to make decisions that are considered to be either right or

wrong.

Ghostwriter: A person who uses a pseudonym and writes on a contractual basis.

Honor code: Honor codes include: (a) a written pledge by students affirming their

work will or has been done honestly; (b) the majority body for judiciary hearings consists

of students, or the chair is a student; (c) unproctored examinations and tests; and

(d) language in the code that places some level of responsibility on students to report

incidents of academic misconduct they learn about or witness (McCabe & Trevino,

1993).

In-service high school teachers: Teachers who are contracted to work in general-

education classrooms either part time or full time in a public school in California.

Moral reasoning/judgment: Moral reasoning is evaluative reasoning that requires

the explicit application of an individual’s values about human welfare and social justice

(Rawls, 1971).

25

Preservice high school teachers: This term is being used to represent students

who are enrolled in an accredited single-subject credentialing program. In the State of

California, in order to obtain a preliminary teaching credential, the California

Commission for Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) requires teacher candidates to enroll in a

Single-Subject Teaching Credential program and to complete coursework and a fieldwork

placement. They are not contractual employees of the school system.

Principled level of moral reasoning: This term is synonymous with “post-

conventional reasoning.” This level of reasoning in Kohlberg’s and Rest’s nomenclature

consists of Stages 5 and 6, where values and ethical beliefs are internalized and

personally meaningful.

Schema: Schema are cognitive structures that replace Kohlberg’s stages. Rest’s

research demonstrates phenomena that link the theory of moral schemas more closely

with information processing and decision making (Rest, 1979).

Single-subject credentialing student: Students who are enrolled in a Single-

Subject Teaching Credential program. The CCTC authorizes single-subject credential

holders to teach the specific subject(s) named on the credential in departmentalized

classes, such as those in most middle schools and high schools.

Wiki: A website that allows the creation and editing of any number of interlinked

web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a text editor

(EncyclopediaBritannica.com, 2011).

Researcher’s Background

The researcher holds a bachelor’s degree in religious studies and a master’s

degree in education and has been active in the field of education for the past 25 years.

26

For 7 years the research worked at Bronx Community College, CUNY, developing and

managing means-tested academic upgrading and job-training programs that served inner-

city youth and adults. After spending 6 years designing English Language Arts

curriculum for a textbook publisher, the researcher taught English at a private university

in central Japan. Prior to and during doctoral studies at the University of San Francisco,

the researcher taught a range of English language arts classes at a public high school and

education courses at several universities in the Bay area of northern California. It was

during that period that Internet use become common. Study habits were affected at every

level and new kinds of cheating behaviors began to be identified. Increasingly, students

were submitting work that seemed at odds with their skill levels or personalities. Often

the researcher traced passages of submitted work to documents online. Through those

experiences, the researcher became interested in the “new plagiarism” and other types of

technology-related cheating. The question surfaced, How can teacher-training programs

prepare teachers to cope with and effectively manage the problem of academic

dishonesty?

Summary

Throughout recorded history education has played a central role in providing

order and benefit to society. Although the purpose of education depends on the nuances

of a particular historical and cultural context, a central tenet to teaching and learning is

the cultivation of good character. The elements that constitute good character, such as

wisdom, honesty, and integrity have fairly good concurrence across religious traditions,

cultural identities, and historical periods. Accordingly, teachers are expected to model

27

behavior that reflects good character and to monitor and evaluate the behavior of their

students.

In recent years, teachers, school officials, and the public at large have increasingly

called academic behavior into question. The topic is popular in scholarly research

literature and in the popular press. Although this is not a new problem, by most accounts

it is increasing (Josephson, 2010; McCabe & Trevino, 1993). A number of factors seem

to be contributing to this trend. High school and college instructors cite a lack of

administrative support when they charge students with cheating. They also

acknowledged a high tolerance for cheating among faculty members. The problem is

further aggravated by widespread use of the Internet. The Internet along with high tech

equipment makes it easy for students to cheat

Kohlberg (1969) theorized that individuals with higher levels of moral reasoning

tended to define good actions in terms of rights and standards that are critically examined

and on which the large society concurs. Studies during the 1990s showed that teachers

with higher levels of moral reasoning tended to encourage a critical exchange of ideas

that fosters democratic classrooms where students participate in rule making and the

establishment of social norms. Recent studies also reported on correlations between

higher levels of moral reasoning among teachers and good classroom practice.

To date, few studies have considered teachers’ attitudes toward cheating as a

problem and the importance of upholding high standards of academic integrity. Another

gap in the literature is the study of the relationship between teachers’ moral reasoning and

their strategies for controlling the cheating problem. This study examined moral-

reasoning levels, attitudes about cheating, and attitudes about taking action. Specifically,

28

it is an investigation of how teachers will act to maintain a climate of academic integrity

through proactive classroom-management strategies that aim initially to prevent cheating

from occurring, and reactive strategies that punish the cheater after infractions have

occurred. The next chapter reviews the literature of the history and causes of academic

dishonesty, moral reasoning among preservice and in-service teachers, and character

education in teacher-training programs.

29

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

Introduction

This chapter reviews the key existing literature relating to academic misconduct,

moral reasoning, and character education in teacher-training programs. Three related

themes are divided into three sections: the first section provides a short history of

classroom management and academic misconduct, the causes of academic misconduct at

the high school and college level, the impact of the Internet, and cheating prevention

policy and practices. The second section provides an overview of the literature on the

issues related to moral-reasoning levels among in-service and preservice teachers, and

among undergraduate education majors. The third section is an overview of character

education in teacher-preparation programs.

Classroom Management and Academic Misconduct

The scholarly study of classroom management in U.S. public schools has a

relatively brief history. At the start of the 20th century, common sense rather than

evidence-based policy were the norm. A pioneer in the field, Bagley (1907) based work

on personal experience and psychological principles that were popular at the time.

Bagley propagated the conventional notion that teachers, by virtue of their status, were

imbued with authority. Cheating was simply forbidden. The teacher was held

accountable for delivering lessons, and for “rearing little savages” into becoming honest

and responsible citizens (p. 61). Classroom rules and procedures were drilled and

memorized. Although preventative measures were considered preferable to reactive

punishment, infractions were dealt with quickly and summarily. Bagley’s empirical

30

studies consisted of surveying 100 teachers on the challenges they faced in the classroom.

The results were published in a series of 15 principles of effective punishment for

disorderly and dishonest conduct in the classroom.

Wickman (1928) conducted a much larger study, surveying 511 teachers in

Cleveland, Ohio and analyzing the type and severity of the management problems

confronted there; Wickman then surveyed mental health workers and compared their

responses. Teachers rated infractions such as cheating and thieving among their biggest

problems. Wickman concluded that the primary cause of classroom problems were

related to mental health and that most behavioral problems “indicated a need for

character education or mental treatment” (p. 82).

In the 1920s the theory of social efficiency took root in the public school system.

Teachers expected integrity, output, and standardization; a model similar to that used in

production plants. Students were expected to behave responsibly and to earn their grades

much in the same way workers earned their wages (Pace & Hemmings, 2006). Breed

(1933) published a textbook that identified classroom management as a unique discipline.

Perhaps Breed’s most significant observation was that classroom management as a

discreet discipline lacked a strong theoretical framework.

Brophy reported that pre-World War II classroom-management publications were

based on opinion rather than reliable research. In a chronicle of classroom management

research Brophy wrote, “The authors began by distilling the wisdom of practice and then

dressed it up with citations, rather than beginning with a set of theoretical principles and

then proceeding deductively” (as cited in Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 22). During the

midcentury, behavioral research on conditioning and reinforcement was used to shape

31

desirable behavior (as cited in Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 25–26). Many teachers

reacted against the notion that misbehaving students should be “given the silent

treatment” through extinction methods. Brown (1952) reiterated the ideology that

teachers were dominant, students were subordinate, the climate was moralistic, and the

focus was on inculcating socially acceptable habits (as cited in Evertson & Weinstein,

2006, p. 22). Kounin and Gump (1958) conducted research that focused on the “ripple

effect” of desist interventions and identified “effective classroom managers” as those

teachers whose classrooms had a minimum of academic misconduct; and “ineffective

managers” as those teachers whose classrooms were rife with misconduct (p. 22).

Effective managers prevented misconduct from occurring by having structures and

routines in place.

In 1964, sociologist Bowers published the first in-depth and far-reaching study on

the nature and prevalence of academic misconduct. Bower investigated cheating among

5,000 college students on nearly 100 campuses and reported that approximately 50% of

those in the sample had engaged in some form of academic misconduct. Bower’s

groundbreaking work had an enduring impact on a broad range of subsequent studies on

cheating at the high school and college level. Subsequent studies focused on cheating

infractions including cheating on examinations, buying or borrowing information,

plagiarism, and reusing academic documents (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).

Causes of Academic Misconduct

A range of studies has considered the antecedent causes that result in cheating

behaviors. Pulvers and Dierkhoff (1999) examined the relationship between internal and

external motivations. Their results suggest that both internal and external factors

32

influence the decision-making process that results in misconduct. Malinowski and Smith

(1985) studied the relationship between moral judgment and other variables relevant to

cheating behaviors. The DIT was administered to 53 male college students in one

location on the campus. After testing, students were observed in a laboratory setting.

The purpose of the observation was to detect cheating behaviors. The researchers found

that although subjects who had higher DIT scores cheated less than students with lower

DIT scores, still 77% of those with higher DIT scores cheated at least once during the

observation. The researchers found that the strongest determinants of cheating was

principled reasoning scores, the next category in order of importance was situational

factors such as temptation. The third category of importance was moral affect, such as

anticipatory guilt.

Turiel’s (1983) domain theory of social reasoning offered an explanation of the

ambiguous relationships between moral reasoning and academic cheating. Turiel

distinguished between matters in the realm of morality from those in the realm of social

convention. Matters in the realm of morality involve major philosophical and social

concerns such as justice and human rights; malevolent behaviors in the moral domain can

cause physical or psychological injury. The conventional domain involves making

judgments in social norms such as saying, “bless you” when someone sneezes or picking

up a magazine that was dropped and handing it to the owner. These behaviors are often

referenced as common sense or common decency. The judgments in this domain carry

relatively less weight because the behaviors they regulate do not seriously impact others.

Rules in the moral domain carry a prescriptive force or theological mandate that would

make deviations from the principles difficult to rationalize. McCabe (2001) reported

33

results from a group of 1,100 high school juniors and a separate group of 2,200 college

students about their personal ethic regarding cheating behavior. Although approximately

70% of the students thought that copying entire sections almost word for word was

unethical, only 35% considered copying a few sentences without proper citations to be

unethical.

Peer influence appears to be a major factor in the decision to cheat. Drinan

(1999) reported that cheating was encouraged when “students feel a loyalty towards each

other and are reluctant to rat on each other” (p. 32). In their study, Rabi, Patton, Fjortoft,

and Zgarrick (2006) measured the responses of 296 pharmacy students at four

universities to five ethical scenarios that involved incidents of academic dishonesty. One

of their findings was that 65% of students would not report a fellow student who cheated.

Pulver and Dierkhoff (1999) surveyed 280 undergraduate students from two liberal arts

colleges using the University Classroom Environment Instrument and the Survey on

Academic Dishonesty. Their results suggested that a connection exists between students’

perceptions of the classroom environment and their willingness to cheat. In

depersonalized learning environments, students were more prone to cheating. McCabe

and Trevino (1993) conducted a study of 6,096 undergraduates at 28 universities and

found that rates of academic dishonesty were significantly correlated to the impression

that others were cheating and the notion that cheating doesn’t hurt anyone.

Love and Simmons (1998) studied the factors that influenced cheating behaviors

by interviewing and surveying graduate students at a large public university in the

Midwest. Students reported that the probability of being caught and leniency on behalf

of their professor were the most important factors when deciding whether to cheat. In a

34

review of 107 studies published between 1970 and 1996 on cheating among college

students, Whitley (1998) found that students were more likely to cheat when they felt

incompetent in the subject area.

Other causes found in the literature are procrastination (Roig & Caso, 2005) and

lower levels of moral reasoning (Szabo & Underwood, 2003). Students described

education as an investment in their future and cheating as a means to maintain a

competitive edge. When money is the primary goal, education is viewed as a means to

that end. In a study conducted on more than 5,000 business and nonbusiness graduate

students at 32 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, McCabe et al.

(2006) confirmed that students cheat to get a good job. Vojak (2007) also found that a

majority of students equate their education to monetary success and that cheating is

considered acceptable if it leads to an acceptable career. Decisions about academic

dishonesty are influenced by an ethical climate that is generated by the attitudes of

parents, teachers, and friends (McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1996).

Students seem to break rules because they haven’t mastered the relevant writing

conventions. Dant (1986) surveyed 309 college freshmen from 13 geographic regions

that attended a large private university. Fifty percent of the students said that they copied

much of their essay content verbatim from source texts. The students reported feeling

unprepared by high school English classes to write reports and essays without resorting to

copying source material. Over 80% of the participants reported that one or more of their

high school English teachers recommended copying information word by word from

outside sources.

35

Roig (1997) conducted two studies of undergraduate students from two private

colleges in a metropolitan area on the East coast. The students were given an original

paragraph and several rewritten versions of it. Some of the versions were superficially

modified; others were thoroughly paraphrased. Students were asked to identify the

plagiarized versions and paraphrased versions of the paragraph. Findings showed that

approximately 75% of the students correctly identified the paraphrased version of the

paragraphs but nearly 50% misidentified some of the plagiarized passages, thinking that

they were correctly paraphrased. The researchers concluded that many students did not

fully comprehend the intricacies of the writing conventions. It may be safe to conclude

that students in that category would plagiarize unintentionally.

The Internet

With the proliferation of digital source material on the web, academic misconduct

has received renewed attention (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Groark, Oblinger, & Choa, 2001).

The Internet offers new alternatives for cheating. Access to the web allows students to

borrow, exchange, and directly steal protected material. The distance between one’s own

work and that of another person’s work can be bridged by cutting and pasting from the

Internet. The Internet, in addition to its benefits of providing a wealth of resources to

scholars, has also made it much easier for students to find and copy other people’s work

and use it as their own. According to the MIT web page entitled, Academic Integrity:

Using the Internet as a Source—A Special Note

The Internet has made academic research must easier than it used to be. Databases

have been created that compile much of the published material relevant to a

certain field, saving you valuable time... Yet the Internet poses special problems.

36

Because it is relatively new and because so much of what appears on the Internet

does not indicate the author's name, people tend to think the information they find

there is "free" and open for the taking. ... Students commonly use the Internet to

access the following:

* Articles originally published in print media that are now available online

through subscription services like LexisNexis or ProQuest.

You can access services like these through the MIT Libraries at:

http://libraries.mit.edu/vera/. For assistance in using them, contact the Libraries'

Ask-Us! service at: http://libraries.mit.edu/ask-us/.

* Articles published in online journals or newspapers

* Web pages or web sites sponsored by reliable institutions

Treat the information you find electronically the way you would treat it if it were

printed on paper. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007)

Although some students have difficulty understanding how to properly use the

Internet as an academic tool, others exploit the medium and knowingly misuse academic

content and intellectual property. Many students believe that web-based information

resources should be public domain and do not need to be cited. Underwood and Szabo

(2003) investigated the attitudes and beliefs of 291 science students at a large public

university. The results revealed that more than 50% of the students used the Internet to

cut and paste and for other academically dishonest activities. The researchers also found

that increased exposure to the Internet supported a willingness to engage in plagiarism.

A popular alternative to cut and paste plagiarism is the use of online writing

assistance services (OWAS). OWAS are websites that offer customers original essays

37

for a fee. An example of OWAS is the Academic Writing Services website (Academic

Writing Help.com, 2011), which features customized papers, a rushed delivery service,

unlimited revisions, customer support, and a satisfaction guarantee. OWAS sites are

commonly referred to as essay mills or paper mills. The term paper mill, although

somewhat dated, refers to repositories of student papers that have been collected and

indexed. OWAS sites are generally understood to refer to sites that offer texts written by

ghostwriters. This service develops and delivers papers that are generally very difficult

to trace and their purchase is difficult to verify (Bauman, 2009).

Morgan and Vaughn (2010) discussed a historical relationship between increased

college enrollment and the plagiarism-for-profit business. The first example of this trend

was evident between 1944 and 1956, when the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act funded

higher-education costs of World War II veterans (Morgan & Vaughn, 2010). The

business of ghostwriting college papers expanded with improved telecommunications and

duplication services. Beginning in the 1950s orders for original compositions were

placed on the telephone and orders would be delivered within a guaranteed time frame

(Stavisky, 1973).

Since the 1990s the Internet has increased the supply and demand for ghostwritten

papers. A web search of terms like term papers or writing assistance generates hundreds

of websites offering prewritten essays for a fee or free of charge (Stevenson, 2001). Most

sites advertise clearly circumscribed services that include customized papers that are

targeted for specific types of customers. During an ordinary search on Goggle, over a

million links to sites surfaced that offered help on term papers. Sites often include such

claims as “guaranteed non-plagiarized, undetectable papers” and “guarantees that the

38

student can send the paper back for modification if it does not meet their guidelines” (E

World Publishing, 2001; see Figure 2).

Figure 2. An advertisement for Paper Masters, a Division of E Publishing, Inc. Note. From Paper Masters, by E World Publishing, 2001, retrieved from http://www.papermasters.com/real.html

At sites such as SchoolSucks.com a full range of completed term papers is

available. Some services offer unlimited usage for an annual subscription rate. Other

sites market custom papers that they claim are written by recent graduates from well-

known universities. Many sites claim that their products will evade plagiarism-detection

services and that they make careful use of misspelling and grammatical errors that

calibrate the writing to grade-level expectations (see Table 2).

Table 3 represents data collected by McCabe (2001) on students’ attitudes and

behavior regarding Internet source material. These survey results are derived from a

group of 1,100 high school juniors and a group of 2,200 college students who participated

in a similar survey in academic year 1999–2000.

39

Table 2

A Sampling of Study Support and Custom Paper Websites

Test preparation websites Term paper websites Edit service websites

www.pinkmonkey.com www.sparknotes.com www.novelguide.com www.givemenotes.com www.schoolpaper.com www.gradesaver.com www.shmoop.com www.bookrags.com www.novelguide.com www.homework-online.com www.cliffsnotes.com

www.cheathouse.com www.lazystudents.com www.geniuspapers.com www.netcheats.com www.a1-termpaper.com www.essayedge.com www.papersinn.com www.research-assistance.com www.ezwrite.com www.termpapers.netcustom-paper-writing.com

www.cyberedit.com www.supaproofread.com Custom-writing.org www.papercheck.com www.editorsforstudents.com Essaywritingservices.org www.ivyedge.com www.bestwritingservice.com www.collegeessayeditor.com www.supremeessays.com www.exclusivepapers.com Proofreadingpal.com

Table 3

McCabe’s Results on Cheating Behavior and the Internet (1999–2001)

Students reporting cheating

behavior Students reporting that the

behavior is unethical

Cheating behavior High school College High school College

A few sentences copied without citation 60% 40% 39% 35%

Sections copied almost word for word 34% 16% 70% 70%

Paper copied in large part from a website 16% 5% 74% 72%

Although relatively few studies compare rates of academic dishonesty in online

coursework to traditional-classroom and blended coursework, there is ample incentive to

improve grades by cheating (Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman, Thomas, & Davis, 2000).

Grijalva, Nowell, and Kerkvliet (2006) surveyed 1,840 students enrolled in

undergraduate-level online courses during the 2001 fall term. They reported that

40

academic dishonesty in online classes was no more pervasive than in traditional

classrooms. Lanier (2006) compared the prevalence of cheating in traditional lecture

courses and online courses among 1,262 students at a large public university. They found

that the number of students who cheated in online courses was somewhat higher than in

face-to-face classes. In another study, Stuber-McEwen, Wiseley, and Hoggatt (2009)

surveyed 225 upper- and lower-division undergraduate students using the Student

Academic Dishonesty Survey to determine the frequency and type of cheating violations

being committed. Results indicated that online students were less likely to cheat than

students in traditional courses. Kennedy et al. (2000) surveyed 162 students and 69

faculty members at a small Midwest college. The researchers found that both students

and faculty believe it is easier to cheat in distance-learning environments.

Academic Misconduct at the College Level

Since Bower’s seminal findings in 1964, academic dishonesty at the college level

has been on the rise (McCabe, 2005). In a longitudinal study, McCabe and Bowers

(1994) revisited Bowers (1964) doctoral study. The original study found that 26% of the

college students at nine campuses had cheated on a test or examination by copying from

another student. In the 1994 McCabe and Bowers study, 52% of the 1,800 students from

the same nine campuses admitted to copying from another student on a test or

examination. Similar increases in cheating behaviors were found across several variables

in the 1994 study.

In another longitudinal study Diekhoff et al. (1996) examined changes in cheating

attitudes and behaviors among college students between 1984 and 1994. In their

findings, 62% of college students reported cheating in 1994, up from 54.1% in 1984.

41

Despite this increase in cheating, students were less likely to neutralize their cheating

behaviors in the 1994 study, evidencing higher levels of group acceptance of cheating.

McCabe’s (2001) survey of 18,000 students, 2,600 faculty and 650 teaching assistants

found that half the students surveyed did not view cutting and pasting as plagiarism, a

finding replicated in Scanlon and Neumann’s results (2002). Among graduate students,

25% admitted to cut-and-paste plagiarism.

In a qualitative study, Payne and Nantz (1994) investigated the dominant

cognitive constructs and social accounts of students who self-reported cheating

behaviors. Students differentiated the level of seriousness between cheating on

examinations and other forms of academic misconduct. They viewed breaking rules on

writing assignments as “not really” cheating. Power’s (2009) qualitative study confirmed

the Payne and Nantz findings. Power found that many college freshman and sophomores

felt little sense of moral agency if the material was meaningful to them.

Academic Misconduct at the High School Level

Cheating among high school students has also risen dramatically during the past

50 years. The preponderance of statistical and anecdotal evidence underscores several

disturbing trends, indicating that secondary-level cheating is not only occurring more

frequently, but that students are using more sophisticated methods to break the rules.

McCabe and Bowers (1994) found that of 24,000 high school students in 70,000 high

schools, 64% of students report one or more instances of serious cheating, which

included copying, helping someone else cheat on a test, or using crib notes. The 1999

Who’s Who Among American High School Students poll of 3,123 junior and senior

students who planned to attend college showed that 80% cheated in the 12 months prior

42

to taking the survey, more than half said that cheating is no big deal, and 95% of cheaters

say they were not caught. In 1999 the Educational Testing Service (ETS) entered into a

partnership with the Ad Council to develop a national campaign to increase awareness

about the prevalence of cheating in high school. The ETS commissioned three studies:

(a) Focus groups, which included 100 test takers of the SAT, AP, GRE, GMAT, TOEFL,

or PRAXIS tests; (b) Focus groups and interviews with 255 test takers and proctors, and

(c) Telephone interviews with 2,436 test takers and parents. Key results indicated that

cheating is more prevalent and considered more acceptable than it was in previous times;

that cheating is endemic to every facet of social life including politics, business, and

school; and that the Internet is obscuring the definition of cheating. The most cited

reasons students gave for cheating were that it is a victimless crime, that everybody does

it, and that it makes up for unfair tests or lack of opportunity (ETS, 1999).

McCabe (2001) surveyed more than 4,500 high school students and found that

72% of students reported one or more instances of serious cheating on written work, 52%

had copied a few sentences from a website without citing the source, and over 45% had

collaborated with others when assigned to work individually. The Benenson Strategy

Group (2008) conducted 1,013 online interviews with students that used cell phones in

Grades 7–12. Results showed that 35% of teens admitted to cheating. Of those who

admitted to cheating, 26% said they used downloaded information during tests, 25% said

that they texted friends during a test in search of answers, 17% reported photographing

the test, and 20% said that they searched the Internet for answers during the test. Many

students thought these behaviors did not constitute cheating. Only about half of students

polled stated that cell-phone use during a test was a serious offense. Thirty-six percent

43

said downloading a paper from the Internet was not a serious offense, and 42% said

copying texts from websites was a either a minor offense or not cheating at all (Benenson

Strategy Group, 2008). The Josephson Institute’s Report Card (2008) on the Ethics of

American Youth 2008, surveyed a total of 29,000 high school students. Selected results

of that survey are represented in Table 4, indicating the percent of students who had

engaged in these practices in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.

Table 4

Key Results of the Josephson Studies (2008)

Once 2+ Times Never

Lied to a teacher about something significant. 28% 7990

37% 10521

36% 10247

Copied an Internet document. 17% 5015

19% 5453

64% 18300

Cheated during a test at school. 26% 7365

62% 10940

18% 10413

Copied another’s homework. 20% 5752

62% 17737

18% 5249

Note. From Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, by Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2008, retrieved from http://josephsoninstitute.org/surveys/index.html

Cheating-Prevention Policy and Practice

Cheating-prevention policy and expectations about how faculty should treat the

problem differs from school to school. Some schools discourage teaching staff from

taking aggressive action to constrain the problem. Faculty actions on suspected cases of

cheating generally fall into two categories. The first is academic sanctioning, where the

instructor initiates formal charges through the school administration or the university

governance. The second is handling the problem with the student according to the rule in

the course syllabus. In a 2004 survey of undergraduate and graduate instructors,

44

Ercegovac and Richardson found that most faculty members handled cheating on an

individual basis, believing it to be a problem between the instructor and student.

Nadelson (2007) surveyed 72 full-time graduate and undergraduate faculty on

their responses to incidents of academic misconduct. Faculty reported 460 cases of

undergraduate cheating. Action was taken in 90 cases (19.5% response rate). Faculty

reported 110 cases of graduate-student misconduct with action taken in 49 cases (44%

response rate). Only 12 of the 72 faculty members reported making formal charges

against students at the department level. Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) reported that

in many situations, faculty members knew of cases of cheating, yet choose not to pursue

them. Reasons for this included unclear definitions of what constituted academic

dishonesty or the feeling that the institution did not provide sufficient training and

support on the subject (Leask, 2006). McCabe (2001) found that the two main reasons

instructors did not initiate proceedings against students were feeling sympathy for the

student and to avoid tedious reporting procedures. McCabe (1993) surveyed a sample of

800 faculty members at 16 U.S. colleges and universities and found that the faculty was

reluctant to report cheating and preferred to handle suspected cases of cheating on their

own. The study authors also reported that many faculty members did not treat cases of

academic dishonesty very harshly (McCabe, 1993).

Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, and Duffy (2001) reported that 20% of faculty

did not monitor students while proctoring a test and 26% of faculty did not include

statements regarding cheating in their syllabi. Furthermore, even though 79% of faculty

reported having caught a student cheating, only 9% reported penalizing the student.

Genereux and McLeod (1995) found that the most common reason given by college

45

students for cheating (n = 365) were low instructor vigilance or instructor apathy.

McCabe (2005) found that faculty members often feel the need to police student work, a

role they do not want to play. Whitley and Keith-Spiegel (2002) compiled a list of

reasons faculty members are reluctant to report suspected violations:

• Lack of administrative support

• The student will be punished in the end anyway

• There is not enough time

• Not 100% sure that cheating occurred

• Fear of lawsuit

• The student has enough problems already

• It will cause more problems than it’s worth

A general consensus in the literature was that challenging a student can be extremely time

consuming and the procedures for confronting a student can be unclear or laborious.

Studies conducted during the 1990s indicated that students were increasingly

ambivalent about the ethics of cheating and that faculty members rarely implemented

either proactive or reactive measures to reduce cheating (Wilson, 1999). In response to

these findings, many institutions began instituting measures to combat the problem.

Allocation of instructional time was dedicated to orienting students to campus policy and

campuswide honor codes were implemented to appeal to the students’ sense of

responsibility. Based on the findings of McCabe et al., (2001), traditional and modified

honor codes reduced the frequency of cheating on many campuses. Honor codes often

include clear rules regarding unacceptable behavior and require a signed pledge not to

cheat. Students often participate in the process of adjudicating cases. Some honor codes

46

also include nontoleration provisions that require students to report any observance of

cheating.

Modified honor codes typically include a role for students in the judicial process

but generally do not include unproctored examinations or the use of a pledge. It is

important to note that although the presence of honor codes had a positive effect in

curbing dereliction, the reduction of cheating rates may be the result of implementing the

honor codes, thereby fostering an open forum about the issue of academic dishonesty.

McCabe et al., (1999) surveyed more than 1,700 students at 31 U.S. colleges and

universities. Students were asked to respond to an open-ended question on the topic of

cheating in college. The report found that more than 40% of the almost 4,300

respondents offered comments. Many of comments reinforced the importance of

institutional–contextual factors such as the degree to which (honor) codes are embedded

in student culture and campus life; the degree to which the campus atmosphere was

supportive and trusting; competitive pressures; the clarity of rules regarding unacceptable

behavior and the severity of punishments; faculty monitoring; peer pressure to cheat or

not to cheat; and class size.

Another prevention method that can be incorporated into an existing program is

plagiarism-detection services (PDS). PDS compare suspect documents to a corpus of

other documents and matches parts of the suspect document to those in the corpus.

Universities often contract PDS for a specified duration. As with other search engines,

plagiarism is detected if the corpus contains the original source or some of the plagiarized

text. Two companies that enjoy favorable reputations in this field are TurnItIn.com and

47

Plagiarism.com. These services publish customized reports that connect the suspect

passages to websites that display similar or identical content.

Moral-Reasoning Levels

During the past 3 decades a series of studies have addressed moral-reasoning

levels in in-service teachers, preservice teachers (those enrolled in a graduate program of

teacher education), and in undergraduate education majors. The studies considered the

moral reasoning of groups of education students compared to noneducation students and

moral reasoning and teacher performance. Other variables considered were ethical

decision-making and cheating behaviors.

In-Service Teachers

Johnston and Lubomudrov’s (1987) case study of 8 female in-service elementary

teachers described how teachers at different levels of moral reasoning viewed school

rules differently. Teachers with lower moral-reasoning levels indicated that the need for

rules was to maintain social order, that school rules should be implemented through

hierarchical power, and that the rules were inseparable from the authorities that

established and enforced the rules. Teachers with higher levels of moral reasoning

believed that the purpose of school rules was to ensure the rights of individuals and

groups and that school rules could be used as a framework to promote student

understanding and responsibility. Diessner (1991) found that overall, preservice and in-

service teachers had principled-reasoning scores in the 40s, meaning that teachers were

functioning at the principled level only 40% of the time. Hence, a majority of teachers

were reasoning at the lower two brackets, thus, personal interest or maintaining norms

level most of the time.

48

Preservice Teachers

Cummings et al. (2001) found that the moral-reasoning level of preservice

teachers was relatively low compared to undergraduate students in other fields. The

researchers suggested that critical thinking necessary for thoughtful decision making

about moral issues may have been underdeveloped due to a lack of theory-based courses

in the teacher-education curriculum. In a follow-up study, Cummings et al. (2002)

administered the DIT and the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS) to measure moral

reasoning and self-reported academic misconduct among preservice teacher-education

students (n = 145). Seventy six percent of the students that reasoned at Kohlberg’s

(1986) postconventional levels admitted to engaging in some type of academic

dishonesty during the 12 months prior to being tested. Those results approximate the

percentage of students with lower levels of moral reasoning that self-reported engaging in

academic dishonesty.

Diessner (1991) reviewed 30 studies that used Kohlberg’s (1969) MJI and found

that less than 50% of in-service teachers reasoned at the principled level when

considering hypothetical moral dilemmas. Diessner wrote, In terms of the DIT, most

studies find both in-service and preservice with principled-reasoning scores in the 40s. In

general, the studies with undergraduates in education show a range of principled-

reasoning score means from the 30s to the 40s; and the studies with in-service teachers

show a typical range of principled-reasoning score means in the 40s to 50s. Reported

typical mean scores range from 10 to 80.

49

Undergraduate Education Majors

Derryberry, Synder, Wilson, and Barger (2006) measured the moral-reasoning

levels of 74 education and 50 liberal-arts majors. They asked two key research questions,

First, do differences exist between those in education majors and liberal arts

majors at the same university on measures of and related to moral judgment?

Second, do relationships among these variables differ for education majors and

liberal arts majors at the same university? (p. 3)

To determine if mean differences existed between the groups, separate analyses were

conducted for each dependent variable or dependent variable set. A multivariate analysis

of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with principled-reasoning, maintaining-norms,

and personal-interest scores as the dependent variables. No significant differences in

moral-reasoning levels were seen between major groups. Those results suggested that

factors beyond college majors are relevant to assessing moral-development levels.

However, as Derryberry et al. (2006) noted, the findings applied to only one university

and addressed general categories of majors (education and liberal arts) rather than

specific majors within each category. A rather striking finding of the Derryberry study

was that students enrolled in credential or licensure programs were more inclined to cheat

than those enrolled in standard degree programs.

Daniel, Blount, and Ferrell (1991) administered the 37-item survey AMS to

measure cheating behavior. Their study of 97 teacher-education students reported on their

perception of frequency of various cheating behaviors by students in their program, the

perceived maturity level of the persons most likely to cheat, and the degree to which the

offenders neutralized their cheating behaviors. Although cheating was not perceived as a

50

major problem among teacher-education students, a significant relationship was noted

between neutralization and academic misconduct. Ferrell and Daniel (1995) conducted a

follow-up survey with the AMS. The researchers clustered variables and used factor

analyses to identify recognizable prototypes. Respondents in both phases were

undergraduate teacher-education students (n = 330). The researchers explained,

Phase I measured academic misconduct across five constructs: cheating on tests

and assignments, inappropriate use of resources, quasi-misconduct, subtle

manipulation, and bold manipulation. Phase 2 resulted in the identification of

several interpretable clusters of persons, ranging from self-proclaimed

noncheaters to those who indicated a clear propensity toward various types of

misconduct. (p. 345)

Some weaknesses and inconsistencies in these studies have been noted.

According to McNeel (as cited in Rest & Narvaez, 1994) the referenced composite

samples that were used in some of these studies were outdated and teacher-education

majors were often compared with composite samples representing a mixed sample of

majors from different institutions. Another problem that was noted was that previous

studies focused exclusively on participants’ abilities to make postconventional moral

judgments, that is, the most advanced level of moral reasoning (Colby & Kohlberg,

1987). Hence, those studies refer only to the degree to which teacher-education majors

called on postconventional reasoning when considering moral dilemmas; the studies did

not account for reasoning that called on personal interest or maintaining norms.

51

Character Education in Teacher-Education Programs

Moral reasoning is often described as the process that guides a person to make

decisions that are either right or wrong. A number of studies call for moral-education

courses in teacher-education programs to support and encourage ethical thinking (Ryan &

Bolin, 1999). Hunter (2000) contended that to engender moral character in a classroom

context, the society at large must support relatively high standards. Others (Durkheim,

1973; Green, 1999) put forth similar arguments centered on the idea that morality cannot

be taught if moral behavior is not sustained in larger moral communities. Mathison

(1998) surveyed 287 teachers and student teachers on the question of whether character

education should be included in a teacher-education curriculum. A majority of

respondents responded affirmatively and 90% agreed that teachers are considered role

models for students. Seventy four percent responded that their teacher-education

programs dedicated little time and attention to character education. In the current climate

of growing concerns about academic dishonesty, there are increasing demands that

teachers act as moral influences on young people (Lickona, 1998).

Other studies have investigated teacher-education-program curriculum and found

that most courses in graduate education programs were skills and methods based

(Cummings et al., 2001; Goodlad, 1994). In a subsequent study Cummings, Maddux,

Harlow, and Dyas (2002) measured the ratio of methods-based courses to theoretically

based courses in 30 elementary-education programs. Along with independent evaluators,

they found that 97.72% of course offerings qualified as either skills or method based.

Yeazell and Johnson (1988) recommended that the study of moral reasoning and ethical

issues be included in a teacher-education-course curriculum. They suggested that

52

teachers who were reasoning at or below their students’ levels would be challenged when

making decisions based on fairness or when meting out discipline.

Goodlad (1990) noted that few teacher-education programs had curricular

structures that would accommodate the inclusion of ethics courses, and that teaching as a

moral activity was not significantly emphasized at the public and private institutions in

the study. Strike and Ternasky (1993) reported that codes of ethics did not play a

significant role in teacher-preparation programs. In 2002 that issue was addressed by a

mandate issued by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. At that

time professional ethical dispositions of teachers became a required part of the

accreditation process (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2002).

Cummings et al. (2002) suggested that an “investigation of teacher education students’

ethical behavior are needed, especially in view of the fact that teachers serve as role

models to students” (p. 294).

Summary

In summary, the literature on moral reasoning and development spans nearly 100

years. Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral development has become the most popular

and tested theory, and it remains among the most cited works in contemporary behavioral

science (Endler, Rushton, & Roediger, 1978). For over 3 decades, research studies have

used the DIT to compare subgroups of students’ and of faculty’s moral decision making.

Studies have considered moral reasoning in relation to a broad range of variables

including age, gender, field of study, and psychological factors including motivation and

locus of control. Overall, studies pertaining to preservice and in-service teachers’ moral-

reasoning scores were not encouraging. For the most part, teachers’ scores did not

53

compare favorably with those of other college majors or professions. Undergraduate and

graduate education students scored at the principled level of moral reasoning level less

than 50% of the time. In terms of personal cheating behaviors, even preservice teachers

at the highest DIT level admitted to committing academic infractions.

Few studies on the relationship between moral reasoning and academic dishonesty

are evident in the literature. Studies concerning academic dishonesty at the high school

and college level have been routinely conducted for the past 50 years. Results are fairly

conclusive that the frequency and pervasiveness of academic dishonesty has been

increasing since the 1960s and that a burgeoning in incidents has occurred in the past 2

decades. The literature indicates that the problem has been aggravated by easy access to

information on the Internet. Various intrinsic and extrinsic motivation theories attempt to

account for the high rates of student cheating. Findings suggest that both internal and

external factors are at work in decision-making processes. Much research has been

dedicated to formulating proactive strategies for counteracting and reducing the problem

of academic misconduct. The most highly considered strategies include allocating

instructional time to the topic, using antiplagiarism services to detect infractions, and

instituting campuswide honor codes.

Although concerns about the moral domain of teaching have been evident in the

literature for several decades, studies investigating moral reasoning in teachers are sparse.

This researcher could find few studies that assessed the moral reasoning of a general

population of in-service high school teachers. There is also a gap in the literature on the

relationship between teachers’ moral-reasoning levels and their attitudes and behaviors

regarding academic dishonesty. Few studies were found that investigated the relationship

54

between preservice high school teachers’ moral-reasoning level and their attitude

concerning academic misconduct. No studies could be found regarding in-service

teachers’ moral reasoning and how that relates to their attitudes about academic

misconduct, or the way that they manage academic misconduct in their classrooms.

The present study investigated whether there were differences between two

subgroups, composed of in-service and preservice teachers, in moral reasoning and their

attitudes about countering the problem of academic dishonesty through prevention and

punishment.

55

Chapter III

Methodology

Restatement of the Research Problem

The current study focused on the growing problem of academic dishonesty at the

high school level. It investigated high school teachers’ beliefs regarding the seriousness

of the problem and their approach to countering it in the classroom. The purpose of this

study was to explore preservice and in-service high school teachers’ cognitive moral

reasoning levels and how those levels correspond to (a) the importance they attribute to

the problem of academic dishonesty, and (b) their readiness to take proactive and reactive

measures to counter the problem. Exploring the relationship between reasoning levels

and beliefs about managing the problem of cheating will compliment the existing

literature and provide researchers, policymakers, curriculum developers, and faculty

members with insight into high school teachers’ disposition toward coping with high

school student cheating behaviors.

Research Design

This quantitative study was designed to revisit Kohlberg’s (1981) theoretical

model regarding moral reasoning and teachers’ attitude about classroom cheating. An

anonymous survey design was adopted because of the sensitive nature of the subject

matter. This type of design collects data about a sample of participants from a given

population. The primary interest was in describing the population through inferences

based on the sample. The main statistical tools used were descriptive statistics (e.g.,

means, standard deviations, percentages, frequencies, correlations, etc.). Groups were

compared in order to describe group differences statistically. Comparisons were

56

calculated using t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) approaches. The anonymity

of the survey allowed participants to respond with confidence, assured that their

contribution would not be exploited or used against them. The anonymity also tended to

reduce the distortion caused by social desirability, or the tendency to give socially

acceptable answers. The surveys gathered data about the subjects’ moral reasoning and

their thoughts about the problem of academic dishonesty and how best to mange it. The

purpose of survey research is to generalize from a sample to a population so that

inferences can be made about some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this population

(Creswell, 2003). A web-based data-collection instrument with three sections was used.

The first section was designed to collect demographic data. The second section surveyed

the subject’s attitudes about various proactive and reactive measures aimed at reducing or

eliminating academic misconduct. Differences across demographic categories were

examined. The third section, the DIT, evaluated the subject’s level of moral reasoning by

examining their responses to three moral dilemmas.

Research Setting: High School

Data were collected via an online survey that was distributed to in-service public

high schools teachers in the Bay area of northern California. The three school districts ,

the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, the Acalanes Union High School District,

and the Mt. Diablo Unified School District are representative of the districts surveyed.

The San Ramon Valley Unified School District encompasses the communities of

Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville, Diablo, and San Ramon (including the new Dougherty

Valley communities) as well as a small portion of the cities of Walnut Creek and

Pleasanton. The district is comprised of 35 schools serving more than 28,000 students in

57

Kindergarten through Grade 12. Academically, the San Ramon Valley district ranks

sixth among all unified school districts in California, and according to the 2008

California Academic Performance Index, is the highest ranking unified school district in

the state, with enrollments of 9,000 or more students. The district operates four

comprehensive high schools with 7,400 students and employs approximately 340

teachers at those sites.

The Acalanes Union High School District encompasses the communities of

Moraga, Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek. The district is comprised of six high

schools serving nearly 6,000 students in Grades 9–12. The Acalanes Union High School

District is considered one of the highest performing school districts in California.

According to the California Academic Performance Index the high schools ranks in the

top 60 of the 1,000 high schools in the state. Approximately 240 teachers work at the

comprehensive high school sites.

The Mt. Diablo Unified School District is one of the largest school districts in the

state of California with over 56 school sites and programs. The district encompasses the

communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Clayton; portions of Walnut Creek and Martinez;

and unincorporated areas including Lafayette, Pacheco, and Bay Point. The district’s

statistics for ethnic/racial diversity, average class size, test scores, and numbers of limited

English proficient students is roughly representative of the state’s overall population.

There are six comprehensive high schools with 10,100 students and 470 teachers.

Research Setting: College

The second setting for this study was a medium-sized private university in

California. The survey instrument was administered to multiple campuses throughout the

58

university system. Respondents were enrolled in a CCTC program. The single-subject

credentialing program prepares candidates to acquire a California state single-subject

teaching credential. Candidates must hold at least a bachelor’s degree from an accredited

institution with a grade-point average of 2.75 completed in either a baccalaureate or

postbaccalaureate program. Acquisition of the 2042 single-subject teaching credential is

required to teach a specific subject, such as mathematics or English at the high school

level. Requirements for obtaining the credential are (a) registering a passing score on the

California Basic Education Skills Test; (b) verification of completion of an approved

subject-matter preparation program in the appropriate subject-matter area or registering a

passing score on all appropriate subtests and examinations for the subject matter

examination and any other required examinations; (c) completion of a single-subject

teacher-credential program that includes 45 credits of coursework; and (d) meeting the

U.S. Constitution requirement by completing appropriate coursework or by passing an

approved examination. Generally, in addition to coursework, fieldwork is required

(Brandman University, 2009).

Population and Sample: High School

This study focused on two target populations. One target population was full- and

part-time public high school teachers who were teaching in public high schools in the

Bay Area of northern California during the Spring of 2011.

59

Figure 3. Gender and main teaching areas.

The overall population was comprised of approximately 65% female and 35% male

teachers. The teachers’ main teaching subject areas were fairly well distributed.

Additionally, more than two-thirds of the teachers had been teaching for at least 7 years,

and a third more than 16 years. Figure 4 shows the number of years teaching by main

teaching subject area.

60

Figure 4. Number of years teaching and main teaching subjects.

The researcher contacted the principals at high school site to ask for written

permission to conduct the online survey. ’An email was sent out that explained the

purpose of the research and invited the teachers to take the online survey. A total

sampling frame of approximately 1,500 teachers was contacted. The sampling was

intended to increase the scope and range of data (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). According

to the literature, a response rate of 15% of survey recipients is the norm for this type of

mailing. Approximately 10% of the teachers contacted replied by partially or fully

completing the survey.

61

Population and Sample: College

The second population for this study was a subset of graduate students who are

enrolled in a single-subject teacher-credentialing program at a private medium-sized

university in California. The population was comprised of approximately 60% female

and 40% male students. The researcher received approval from the university

Institutional Review Board Protection of Human Subject (IRBPHS) office to conduct the

online survey and followed the protocol listed for the public-school-teacher group. An

introductory letter explained the purpose of the research study, provided instructions,

made an appeal regarding the importance of the study, and offered a prize as an incentive

to increase the response rate. Twenty $15 gift cards were randomly distributed through

the US Postal Systems at the end of the spring 2011 semester. Approximately 200

preservice teachers were contacted. A response rate of 15% (N = 20) of survey recipients

was anticipated. In actuality only 8% responded to the invitation. Of those who

responded, nearly 90% (N = 16) completed the survey.

Instrumentation: Defining Issues Test (DIT)

The researcher used an online system to send out the surveys. The survey has two

sections. The first section, Rest’s DIT is considered “the most widely used measure of

moral judgment development” (Thoma, 2002, p. 225). The DIT (short form) is a

multiple-choice recognition-task-assessment instrument that has three moral dilemmas

followed by 12 response items. Participants rank and rate the statements that reflect

activated schema that underlie the subject’s moral thinking. Responses are categorized

resulting in scores that correspond to Kohlbergian levels of moral reasoning.

62

From a broader theoretical perspective, the DIT corresponds to a four-component

process (Bebeau, 2002). The processes are (a) the recognition and interpretation of moral

situations. A sociopath, for example, may lack any basic recognition that a problem

exists and is incapable of developing an interpretation that would result in moral

understanding; (b) the judgment about which course of action is morally right. This

involves making a judgment among available options and the decision to act based on

that judgment; (c) the prioritization of what is morally right over other considerations.

This requires moral motivation, the internal desire to act according to moral standards,

the ability to process possible courses of moral action, and the selection of a course that

seems to be the best fit for the dilemma at hand; and (d) the follow-through on the

intention to behave morally. This phase involves the determination to act morally even

when it would be more convenient to act otherwise.

The DIT measures moral judgment, the second of the four component processes.

When the subject is faced with a moral dilemma on the DIT, they must first be attentive

to the moral features of the dilemma; then they can level a moral judgment on the issue.

The DIT is not designed to predict what a person would do in a certain situation. Rather,

the DIT is intended to measure what a person thinks should be done in that situation

(Rest, 1986). The most frequently used DIT index, the P-score, is a measurement of

postconventional moral reasoning, the highest level on Kohlberg’s scale (1969). The

multiple-choice-test items that are selected indicate the subject’s level of

postconventional moral reasoning. Hence, a score of 50% is equivalent to the percentage

of postconventional items selected to define the central issue of a moral dilemma (Rest,

1986). In moral-judgment development, the sample is considered to be modal at the

63

postconventional moral-judgment schema when principled-reasoning scores exceed the

lower two levels (the personal-interest level and the maintaining-norms level.

Depending on activated schema, seven type indicators are classified as either

consolidated (around a specific developmental stage) or transitional (between

developmental stages). Bebeau (2002) and others have used type indicators to give a

clearer sketch of the subject’s moral cognitive characteristics, represented in Figure 4.

Figure 5. Defining Issues Test scores clustered around type indicators. Note. From The Four Component Model of Morality, by M. J. Bebeau, June 25, 2010, paper presented at the American Bar Association Associate Dean’s Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

A weakness of the DIT is that participants may not fully comprehend the items

they select. That problem is countered by an internal reliability check. Meaningless-

sounding terms and test items are mixed in with plausible answers. If those items receive

high ratings, the results are not included in the sample (Rest et al., 1999). According to

Rest et al., (1999), “After the four component model became well known, research

interest shifted to studies that adopted a multimeasure approach in which attention to the

64

contribution of other components was included in the study design” (Rest as cited in

Thoma, 2006 p. 73). It is the researcher’s opinion that the use of the DIT along with the

Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire would constitute an effective multimeasure

approach.

Measurement: Defining Issues Test (DIT)

The participant’s responses to the DIT questions were categorized according to

values that were assigned based on the 5-point Likert scale with one representing the

lowest level. The responses were then summed and divided by 3 (the number of

dilemmas) to obtain a percentage for each stage. The percentage score determined the

participant’s reasoning level. An additional measure of postconventional moral

development, referred to as the N2 score, combines the degree to which postconventional

items receive higher ratings than items from the personal-interest and maintaining-norms

categories (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003).

Validity: Defining Issues Test (DIT)

The DIT has proven validity in diverse ways of studying moral judgment (Rest et

al., 1999). Rest et al. (1999) cited a mega-sample comprised of 45,856 DITs, scored over

a 4-year period, that evidence the DIT’s validity in spite of differences in age, cultural

background, and the region where the tests were administered. Validity for the DIT has

been assessed in its ability to differentiate groups that differ on moral expertise. A 1995

study used composite samples consisting of 1,115 participants, evenly divided between

junior high school students, senior high school, undergraduate, and graduate college

students. The sample consisted of 10 subgroups, ranging from the junior high school to

65

PhD moral-philosophy and political-science students. The studies showed that 30% to

50% of the variance of the DIT scores was attributable to level of education.

Although the DIT provides an objective method to assess moral reasoning, several

distinct and significant criticisms have been leveled against it. Martin et al. (1977)

argued that the structure of moral reasoning and the moral-reasoning content used on the

DIT dilemmas and response choices are not clearly separate. That study criticized the

test design on the grounds that,

(a) Some stages have many more items associated with them than do other stages

(hence, scale scores are not comparable with one another); (b) different dilemmas

have different numbers of items from a given stage; (c) there is a significant order

artifact for Stage 3 and Stage 4 items; and (d) this order effect interacts with age.

There is also a perceived lack of face validity regarding the hypothetical dilemmas in the

DIT when used to assess educators’ moral reasoning because none of the dilemmas

presented have an educational context. This lack of face validity could cause respondents

to abandon their educational perspective in favor of a general societal perspective. As a

result, moral reasoning about dilemmas related to an educational context may result in

different moral-reasoning levels.

A related concern involves the possibility of “story pull,” a term that suggests that

individuals use different levels of reasoning depending on their familiarity and

experience with particular scenarios (Freeman & Giebink, 1979). The influence of story

pull could account for a significant variation in responses depending on the extent to

which the respondent identifies with the character in the dilemma and with the moral

dilemma that the situation poses.

66

Reliability: Defining Issues Test (DIT)

The DIT includes several internal methods for protecting reliability. Reliability

checks are performed during the DIT scoring process and data are purged if meaningless

items or false data is ascertained. Test score reports include a meaningless score. Rest

(1986) explained the design criteria,

A number of meaningless but complex-sounding items are interspersed

throughout the DIT. If too many of these items receive top ranking by a subject,

we infer that the subject is not attending to meaning, and consequently invalidate

that subject’s questionnaire. We also have an internal consistency check in the

DIT to determine if subjects are randomly responding without attending to any

Item feature. (p. 197)

“Test–retest correlations over a period of several weeks average in the .80s, and the

internal reliabilities as measured by Cronbach’s alpha also averages in the .80s” (Rest &

Narvaez, 1994). The DIT shows discriminate validity from verbal ability/general

intelligence, and conservative/liberal political attitudes. Also, Rest et al. (1999) reported

that the DIT produced significant trends after controlling for verbal abilities, IQ, and

cognitive abilities.

Instrumentation: Cheating Management Questionnaire (CMQ)

The online survey instrument was comprised of two sections, the DIT section and

the CMQ section. The CMQ is an original instrument. The questions were developed to

collect demographic data and attitudinal data about student cheating. Responses were

logged on a 5-point Likert grid. Low mean scores indicated less likelihood that the

respondent would take action to prevent cheating or to punish cheaters. Higher mean

67

scores indicated a greater likelihood of preventing cheating or punishing cheaters. The

CMQ section of the survey consists of 17 questions and is designed to take approximately

15–20 minutes. An electronic version of the instrument was administered with the DIT

as a single file online via SurveyMonkey. A sample page of the CMQ is included in

Figure 6.

Figure 6. Cheating Management Questionnaire sample page.

Table 5 represents the correspondence between the research questions and the

items on the CMQ. The variables are moral-reasoning levels, cheating prevention, and

punishment between the in-service and the preservice groups, and within the in-service

group.

68

Table 5

Relationship of Research Questions and Cheating Management Questionnaire items

Research questions Cheating Management Questionnaire items

1. Are there differences between the in-service and preservice teacher groups on moral reasoning levels and attitudes about cheating prevention and cheating punishment?

7, 8, 10, 14, 12, 17, 18

2. What is the relationship within the in-service group on moral reasoning levels, cheating prevention and cheating punishment?

9, 11, and 15

Measurement:

Cheating Management Questionnaire (CMQ). The CMQ questions and

responses were designed to measure the respondents’ opinions about the seriousness of

the problem of cheating in high school classes and their method of dealing with the

problem. The response items were designed to correspond, as a quantitative correlate, to

level of seriousness that the respondents attributed to the problem cheating. The same

principle was applied to the design and development of question and response items

concerning the other two attitudinal variables, the prevention of cheating and the

punishment of cheaters.

The response items were assigned values based on the 5-point Likert scale with 1

representing the lowest level and 5 representing the highest value. The scores were

totaled with a lowest possible score of 17 and a highest possible score of 85. The

responses were categorized according to three variables (seriousness, proactivity, and

reactivity). Selected demographic variables, age, gender, years of education, and years of

teaching were represented according to individual-participant output.

69

Validity: Cheating Management Questionnaire (CMQ). The CMQ was

developed to assess the attitudes of respondents regarding the scope of the problem of high

school cheating and to determine the impact of demographic issues such as age, gender,

subjects taught, and years teaching. One goal was to determine whether a meaningful

relationship exists between attitudes and conduct in the classroom. Two experts in

research methodology reviewed the CMQ. Fifteen in-service high school teachers also

reviewed the instrument and evaluated it for content validity. Both groups of reviewers

indicated that the questions and response choices were worded clearly. They reported that

syntax was consistent from question to question and that they did not feel “led” by the

wording. The general response confirmed that the questions and response choices were

understandable and that the response items represented a good range of plausible choices.

Reliability: Cheating Management Questionnaire (CMQ). The multi-item

Likert-type scale responses were carefully reviewed to assure that respondents had the

opportunity to select items that closely reflected their opinion. According to Nunnally

and Bernstein (1994) single-item measures have considerably higher likelihood of

producing random measurement error, resulting in lower levels of reliability. The multi-

item scales were summated and the Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to check for the

internal consistency among individual items. The reliabilities for the prevention (.74) and

punishment (.77) are based on the sample of teachers used in this study. These figures

represent good internal consistency. Nunnally (1978) recommended that instruments

used in basic research have reliability of .70 or better. Increasing reliabilities much

beyond .80 is unnecessary with instruments used for basic research (Nunnally, 1978, pp.

244–245).

70

Human-Subjects Approval

Prior to collecting any data, the researcher obtained approval to conduct the study

from the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the target institutions and

the University of San Francisco IRBPHS. Data for this study were collected in

accordance to all rules and regulation of the University of San Francisco’s IRBPHS. The

researcher conducted the study with the highest ethical standards, following all guidelines

set by the IRBPHS in the protection of human subjects in research (see Appendix F). A

copy of the USF’s human-subjects approval is also be available in the Dean’s office,

located in the School of Education.

Pilot Procedures

The purpose of pilot testing was “to establish the content validity of an instrument

and to improve questions, format, and the scales” (Creswell, 2003, p. 158). The DIT

section of the survey was administered to 15 high school seniors in an AP English class

to assess whether the test items would elicit the types of responses needed for data

analysis. The instrument was piloted to the high school students because that was the

only population to which the researcher had easy access at that time. The responses were

scored at the Center for Ethical Development at the University of Alabama and the results

were reported to the researcher in summary form. The researcher then solicited feedback

from the test takers on the content and on the appropriateness of the questions. Although

the pilot procedure helped to acquaint the researcher with administration of the

instrument, the data derived from the pilot was not especially useful because the sample

differed from the target population of the study. That being said, the scores of this high

71

school student group were consistent with the expected values as indicated by Rest (1986,

p. 115).

The CMQ section of the survey was piloted among both preservice teachers

(N = 6) and in-service teachers (N = 10) in January and February 2011 to check for

content validity and reliability. This pilot was useful because those surveyed were in the

target population and were able to make well-considered critical comments about the

questions and responses. This resulted in a winnowing process and a series of changes

and revisions were made on both the question and answer items. The most common

criticism was that the questions were stated in a way that would make it easy to give

socially desirable responses. The actual responses confirmed this problem. In the case of

the statement, It is the teacher’s responsibility to punish students who are caught

cheating, with answer choices,

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Strongly disagree

4. Disagree

5. No opinion

The response, Strongly agree, was selected 100% of the time. As a result, that statement

was rephrased and the response item were rephrased as follows,

The first time a student is caught cheating on homework they should ______.

1. Be given a review of cheating prevention rules

2. Get a warning—on the next offense they will get an ‘F’

3. Lose 50% credit on the current assignment

72

4. Get an ‘F’ on the current assignment

5. No Opinion

Data Collection

The researcher used an online service to distribute the survey to collect data for

this study. After IRBPHS and district approval, an invitation was sent via e-mail to the

target population of teacher-credentialing students and high school teachers. It was

necessary to conduct a second mailing to nonrespondents. The e-mail cover letter

contained information including (a) a brief explanation of the purpose of the study,

(b) the length of time required to complete the survey, (c) the researcher’s contact

information, and (d) an explanation of how data and identity privacy will be maintained.

SurveyMonkey software was used for online distribution. Preservice and in-service

teachers from multiple public school districts and college campuses filled out the survey,

a self-reported assessment instrument. Therefore this was not a random, stratified sample

of respondents. SurveyMonkey transferred the collected data to the University of

Alabama’s Center for Study of Ethical Development for preliminary descriptive

statistical processing.

Data Analysis: Defining Issues Test

DIT responses were scored at the Center for Ethical Development at the

University of Alabama. That data, along with the CMQ results, were then entered into an

SPSS scoring program. SPSS generated descriptive statistics that represented the

demographic data. A chi-square test was used to check if statistically significant

differences existed between the two groups. T-tests were conducted to compare the two

groups on the measures of moral reasoning, academic-cheating prevention, and

73

academic-dishonesty punishment. Intercorrelations were conducted between the three

measures for the in-service group alone. In addition, a supplementary analysis on gender

differences on the three measures for that group was generated. Because of the small

sample size for the preservice teachers, a number of analyses were limited to the in-

service teacher group.

Data Analysis: Cheating Management Questionnaire

Participants rated the likelihood of implementing measures to prevent academic

misconduct and the likelihood of implementing measures to punish offenders. To

investigate whether differences existed between moral-reasoning levels and cheating

prevention, an “attitude” score was created based on responses to CMQ Items 7, 8, 10,

14, 12, 17, and 18. These items were categorized as approaches to prevent cheating.

Likewise, a cheating punishment attitude score was created based on responses to CMQ

Items 9, 11, and 15. These items were categorized as approaches to punish students who

cheat. Three independent sample t-tests were employed to answer this question.

Correlation analyses were conducted by group and among the groups. Because of the

lower-than-expected response rate, the sample size for the preservice teachers was

relatively small. Therefore, several of the analyses were limited to the in-service group.

74

Chapter IV

Findings of the Study

Introduction

The data analysis and results of the study are presented in this chapter in six

sections: (a) restatement of the problem, (b) description of the participants, (c) description

of the findings, (d) data analysis of Research Question 1, (e) data analysis of Research

Question 2, and 6) a summary.

Restatement of the Problem

This study dealt with the growing problem of academic dishonesty and

investigated the relationship between high school teachers’ moral reasoning and their

attitudes about cheating. Specifically, the study focused on preservice and in-service

high school teachers’ cognitive moral-reasoning levels and how those levels compared to

(a) the importance that teachers attributed to academic dishonesty, and (b) their readiness

to take proactive and reactive measures to counter the problem.

Description of Participants

A total sampling frame of approximately 1,250 high school teachers was

contacted and invited to participate in this study. A total of 130 full-time and part-time

teachers took the online survey. The response rate for this subset was approximately

10%. A total sampling frame of 180 teacher-credentialing students were contacted and

invited to participate in the study. A total of 16 students responded to the invitation and

took the online survey. The response rate for this subset was significantly lower than

expected, approximately 8%. Of the total number of respondents that started the survey,

68.7% (n = 146) completed it.

75

Findings

The data analysis is presented in the following order. The demographic data is

presented first, followed by the t-tests between the two subgroups on the measures of

moral reasoning, academic-cheating prevention, and academic-cheating punishment.

Intercorrelations between the three measures for the in-service teachers are provided.

Because of the small sample size for the preservice teachers, the supplementary analysis

on gender differences on the three measures was conducted only on the in-service teacher

group. Table 6 provides the demographics for each group. Because of the small number

of preservice teachers the n column is more informative than the percent column. A

fairly even distribution in gender and age can be observed. There is a less even

distribution in education level and years teaching. The teaching-subject variable shows

fairly even distribution with social studies ranking the lowest with 14.6% and English

ranking the highest with 30.8%. The teaching subjects, other than those listed, are

grouped in the other category. Participants who were not teaching are grouped in the not

applicable category. The preservice teachers that identified their teaching subject refer to

content area of the class at their student-teaching placement. The chi-squares indicate

that there were no statistically significant differences between the demographic

characteristics of the two groups.

76

Table 6

Demographic Characteristics of In-service (N = 130) and Preservice Teachers (N = 16)

In-service Preservice

Characteristic n % n % x2 p

Gender 2.54 .11

Male 56 43.1 10 62.5

Female 74 56.9 6 37.5

Age 2.40 .79

20–30 28 21.5 3 18.8

31–40 31 23.8 1 6.3

41–50 32 24.6 10 6.25

50–60 27 20.8 2 12.5

61 > 10 7.7 — —

Not provided 2 1.5 — —

Education 4.24 .64

BA 7 5.4 1 6.3

BA plus professional degree

2 1.5 2 12.5

BA plus teaching credential

48 36.9 8 50.0

MA in education 36 27.7 4 25.0

MA other than education

32 24.6 1 6.3

EdD 1 .8 — —

PhD or other 3 2.3 — —

Not provided 1 .8 — —

Years teaching 6.31 .27

0–1 12 9.2 2 12.5

2–3 14 10.8 1 6.3

4–6 19 14.6 3 18.8

7–15 52 40.0 3 18.8

16 or more 32 24.6 7 43.8

Not provided 1 .8 — —

77

In-service Preservice

Characteristic n % n % x2 p

Subject 8.07 .15

English 40 30.8 1 6.3

Mathematics 19 14.6 6 37.5

Science 25 19.2 3 18.8

Social studies 19 14.6 4 25.0

Other 25 19.2 2 12.5

Not applicable 1 .8 — —

Not provided 1 .8 — — Note. Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 considered the relationships between moral reasoning and the

two attitudinal measures. Research Question 1 read, What is the relationship between

moral reasoning, cheating prevention and cheating punishment? Moral-reasoning scores

were based on responses to the DIT section of the survey; the two-attitudinal measures

were based on responses to the CMQ section. This part of the analysis focused on the in-

service teachers data. Product moment correlation was the statistic employed and the .05

alpha levels were used for statistical significance (see Table 7).

Table 7

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for In-service Teachers

on Moral Reasoning, Academic Cheating Prevention, and Academic Cheating

Punishment (N = 130)

Measure M SD Reasoning Prevention Punishment

Reasoning 44.03 18.91 .80

Prevention 3.32 .37 -.06 .74

Punishment 3.55 .63 -.03 .23* .77 Note. Reliabilities for Prevention and Punishment are in bold type in the diagonal. The reliability for Reasoning is in italics; *p < .05

78

The reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the prevention (.74) and punishment (.77)

scales are shown in bold type in the diagonal and are based on the sample of teachers

used in this study. It may be noted that while the correlations with moral reasoning were

near zero, there was a statistically significant correlation between prevention and

punishment (r = .23, p < .05). This was expected since both scales are measures derived

from the overall construct of cheating prevention/punishment. Aside from statistical

significance, the importance of a correlation can be assessed through the effect size. The

correlation itself is commonly used as an indicator of importance as follows (Cohen,

1988),

Small effect size: .10

Medium effect size: .30

Large effect size: .50

Neither of the correlations between the two attitudes and moral reasoning approached .10

and thus, for these data, there was no support for the correlations showing importance

from an effect-size perspective.

Supplementary analyses on the in-service teacher group were conducted using the

demographic variables. No statistical or effect size differences or relationships were

found associated with moral reasoning, prevention, or punishment, except for gender.

The gender results are provided in Table 8. Observation of the means shows that the

female teachers scored higher than the male teachers did on each of the measures. The

differences on moral reasoning and prevention were statistically significant

(t(128) = 2.14, p < .05 and t(128) = 2.55, p < .05 respectively). Both differences can be

considered near medium in effect size in respect to importance as described above. The

79

difference on punishment was not statistically significant. However the effect size

(d = .29) is in the small to medium range in importance.

Table 8

In-service Teacher Gender Differences on Moral Reasoning, Academic Cheating

Prevention, and Academic Cheating Punishment

Males (n = 56) Females (n = 74

Measure M SD M SD diff t(128) Cohen’s d

Reasoning 40.00 16.54 47.07 20.09 7.07 2.14* .37

Prevention 3.22 .39 3.39 .33 .17 2.55* .46

Punishment 3.45 .70 3.63 .56 .18 1.63 .29 *p < .05

The results for the other demographic variables are provided in Appendix J.

Although no differences were found associated with age, education, years teaching, and

subject taught, the tables in Appendix J provide the analysis of variance for reasoning,

punishment, and prevention for each demographic. The p values did not approach

statistical significance at the .05 level.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 asks whether differences existed between the two groups

according to three variables: moral reasoning, cheating prevention, and cheating

punishment. The moral-reasoning value was based on responses to the DIT; the later two

values were based on the CMQ. Research Question 2 stated, “Are there differences

between in-service and preservice teachers’ moral reasoning levels and their attitudes

about cheating prevention and cheating punishment?” In order to perform the statistical

analysis, a cheating-prevention attitude score was calculated based on responses to CMQ

Items 7, 8, 10, 14, 12, 17, and 18. These items were categorized as approaches to prevent

80

cheating. A cheating-punishment attitude score was calculated based on responses to

CMQ Items 9, 11, and 15. These items were categorized as approaches to punishing

cheaters.

Three independent sample t-tests were conducted to answer this question and the

results are shown in Table 9. The .05 probability level is used for statistical

interpretation. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups as

to their attitudes about punishment (t(144) = 3.34, p < .05) with the in-service teachers

showing a more stringent attitude (M = 3.55) toward punishing cheaters than the

preservice teachers (M = 2.86).

Table 9

In-service and Preservice Teacher Differences on Moral Reasoning, Academic Cheating

Prevention, and Academic Cheating Punishment

Males (n = 56) Females (n = 74

Measure M SD M SD diff t(128) Cohen’s d

Reasoning 44.03 18.91 34.79 17.51 9.24 1.86 .49

Prevention 3.32 .37 3.23 .48 .09 .81 .24

Punishment 3.55 .63 2.86 .79 .69 3.34* 1.01 *p < .05

Statistical significance indicates only that a difference exists and provides no

information about the importance of the difference. In addition, statistical significance is

strongly dependent on sample size (research (Nunnally, 1978, p. 35). The effect size, an

indicator of the clinical or practical importance of a difference, can be used regardless of

sample size or whether there is statistical significance. It is a measure of the strength of

the relationship between the two groups. Cohen’s d is often used for this purpose and is

81

shown in the last column of the table. Cohen’s d is defined as the difference between two

means divided by a standard deviation for the data (Cohen, 1988). In respect to moral

reasoning, it can be observed that there was nearly a 10-point difference (diff column,

9.24) between the two groups. The effect size for this difference is .49. One convention

for the interpretation of Cohen’s d is as follows (Cohen, 1988).

Small effect size: .20

Medium effect size: .50

Large effect size: .80

Using the above-referenced values, the difference in moral reasoning (diff = 9.24)

was greater for the in-service teacher subgroup than the preservice teacher subgroup, and

according to effect size, is in the range of medium importance (d = .49). In addition, the

difference in the attitude toward the punishment of offenders (diff = .69) is not only

statistically significant but can be considered in the large (d = 1.01) range with respect to

importance. The difference in prevention of cheating (diff = .09) can be considered to be

in the small (d = .24) range in importance. However, the highest score possible on the

cheating scale was 4.00. Thus, the means for both groups being above 3 indicates a

stringent attitude toward cheating.

Summary

The analysis of data for Research Questions 1 and 2 was reported in this chapter.

Noteworthy points are (1) a statistically significant difference between the groups toward

punishing cheaters. This difference was not only statistically significant but was

considered large according to Cohen’s d; (b) In-service teachers scored higher on the

cognitive moral-reasoning scale. A 9.24-point difference was observed between the two

82

groups; (c) relationships associated with moral reasoning, prevention, and punishment

were observed according to gender. Female teachers scored higher than male teachers on

each of the measures. The difference between moral reasoning and cheating prevention

were statistically significant; (d) the absence of statistical or effect-size differences or

relationships in the association between moral reasoning and age or education level does

not confirm the findings of multiple studies that tested this construct. In the following

chapter a discussion of the findings, policy implications, and recommendations for future

research will be addressed.

83

Chapter V

Discussion, Implications, Recommendations, and Final Remarks

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between moral reasoning

and cheating prevention from the perspective of preservice and in-service high school

teachers. By collecting and analyzing survey data, the researcher was able to identify

several unique relationships between and within groups. The outcomes of this study are

viewed through a theoretical lens that takes into account Kohlberg’s (1969) framework of

cognitive moral development and Rest’s (1979) four-component model. Based on the

DIT results, the researcher identified plausible connections between moral-reasoning

levels and attitudes about cheating. The findings represented here illustrate the strengths

and weaknesses of the proposed model. The relationship between moral reasoning and

each attitudinal variable were hypothesized to be positive, indicating that higher moral

reasoning (DIT) scores would correspond to higher CMQ scores. The hypotheses read as

follows:

H1: In-service teachers with higher moral-reasoning scores will be more likely to

implement proactive and reactive measures to reduce cheating than in-service teachers

with lower reasoning scores.

H2: Preservice teachers with higher moral-reasoning scores will be more likely to

implement proactive and reactive measures to reduce cheating than preservice teachers

with lower moral-reasoning scores.

The logic behind the hypotheses was that teachers with higher levels of principled

reasoning, as demonstrated when making judgments on the moral dilemmas on the DIT,

84

would demonstrate similar levels of reasoning when making judgments about the

practical dilemmas posed in the CMQ. If this had been the case, there would have been

more consistency between higher DIT scores and higher CMQ scores. That outcome

would equate to more stringent attitudes about maintaining academic integrity in the

classroom. As it turned out, the only positive correlates are listed here:

1. Higher moral-reasoning scores in both groups with higher cheating-prevention

scores

2. Higher moral-reasoning scores in the female group with higher prevention and

punishment scores.

Beyond that, the hypothesized trend was not observed. The dataset suggests that

perhaps the participants who made principled moral judgments in response to the

hypothetical DIT dilemmas did not call on the same or comparable moral schema when

considering practical judgments about a classroom situation. This point has been noted in

the moral-reasoning literature in critiques of Kohlberg’s theory and assessment

procedures. As noted earlier in this study, Walker et al. (1995) argued that the type of

reasoning that Kohlberg was measuring in the MJIs was different from the type of

reasoning used in everyday life. Although the dilemmas in the DIT vignettes are not

synonymous with practical classroom dilemmas, the difference between making

hypothetical judgments and practical judgments is relevant to the interpretation of these

findings.

Another possible explanation for this outcome is that teachers’ perceived

judgment on how they will contend with practical dilemmas in the classroom and how

they will actually contend with those dilemmas is different. Wygant (1997) argued that

85

automatic or “unreflective” reasoning is precluded from consideration. This is

particularly telling when considering limitations of the DIT. Wygant wrote,

In both Kohlberg’s (1981, 1984) model and Rest’s (1986) four-component

version, growth in moral judgment and behavior follows from maturing principled

reasoning. Moral actions that are performed automatically or without serious

reflection are not examined because they do not emerge from, or depend on, this

type of reasoning. (1997, p. 1023)

Assuming that this line of argument is credible, it is possible that the judgments that were

rendered without serious reflection were not recognized according to the DIT criterion. If

that were the case, those judgments would not be recognized as principled reasoning and

would be assigned to the personal-interest and the maintaining-norms level, thereby

lowering the mean scores. Although these factors should be taken into account, they are

beyond the scope of this study. Additional study would be required to ferret out the

reasons behind this finding.

An interesting finding was the statistically significant difference on the attitudes

about punishment between the subgroups (t(144) = 3.34, p < .05). The in-service

teachers (M = 3.55) showed a more stringent attitude toward punishing cheaters than the

preservice teachers (M = 2.86). The difference (diff = .69) was statistically significant

with a fairly large effect size (d = 1.01). Essentially, this means that teachers in the field

were less forgiving than teachers who are preparing to enter the field. This outcome

might result from the condition that the in-service teacher group have accrued years of

experience with cheating and cheaters in the high school setting. When coupling this

group’s less forgiving attitude with their higher moral-reasoning scores, a positive

86

correlation seems to exist between the more stringent, less forgiving attitude and higher

reasoning levels. This finding compliments the findings of Johnston and Lubomudrov

(1987) and Chang (1994).

Johnston and Lubomudrov (1987) found that teachers with higher DIT scores

were more democratic in their methods of establishing and maintaining discipline. Those

teachers involved students in rule making and tried to engender an understanding the

purpose of classroom rules and why they were necessary. Chang (1994) discussed the

correlation between high levels of moral reasoning and good classroom practice. In that

study, instructors who scored in the principle range on the DIT demonstrated the

tendency to accommodate different viewpoints in the classroom. In particular, those

instructors helped students understand the issues surrounding ethics, integrity, and

academic dishonesty from multiple perspectives (Chang, 1994). Although it is not clear

that a more stringent attitude toward cheaters and cheating equates to a more democratic

attitude, it does seem plausible that the two traits coexist in that group of teachers.

The difference in cheating-prevention attitudes between the subgroups (diff = .09)

and the effect size for the difference is considered to be of small importance (d = .24).

However, the highest possible score on the CMQ cheating scale was 4.00 and both

groups scored above 3.00, indicating stringency in both subgroups when considering the

importance attributed to the implementation of preventative and reactive measures.

It can be observed that there was nearly a 10-point difference (diff. 9.24) in

moral-reasoning level between the groups. The effect size for this difference is .49. The

moral-reasoning difference was greater for the in-service group than the preservice group.

This effect size is of medium importance (d = .49). These results are consistent with

87

Diessner (1991), who found that both in-service and preservice teachers’ principled-

reasoning scores generally were in the 40s range. Specifically, in Diessner’s literature

review on studies that investigated moral reasoning in undergraduate education students

and in-service teachers, the undergraduate education student group scored in the 30s to

40s range, whereas the in-service teachers scored in the 40s to 50s range. Those results

are consistent with this researcher’s findings, although this study concerned graduate

education students whereas Diessner’s sample was undergraduate education students.

Also, Diessner’s review of the literature included studies with different design protocols

that are not consistent with the present study.

Gender groupings showed a remarkable difference in moral-reasoning levels.

Female teachers scored higher than their male counterparts on each of the measures. The

differences on moral reasoning and attitude toward cheating prevention were statistically

significant (t(128) = 2.14, p < .05 and t(128) = 2.55, p < .05 respectively). These findings

indicate that female teachers in this group were more stringent and less forgiving than the

male teachers. They were harsher in the type of the punishment exacted and in the

expedience of exacting the punishment. As an example, female teachers would tend to

assign an “F” on the first offense, whereas male teachers would be inclined to give a

warning or subtract points on the first offense. This finding is surprising because gender

compared to age and education is generally understood as a trivial variable when

accounting for variance on measures of moral reasoning. A range of studies using both

the MJI and the DIT has found that education is the most powerful demographic variable

in predicting DIT scores (Rest, 1979; Rest et al., 1999; Thoma, 1986). Again, it is

reasonable to say that a positive correlation may exist between the higher moral-

88

reasoning levels and the more stringent, less forgiving attitude. The effect size of both

differences can be considered of near medium importance (d = .24). The difference in

attitudes regarding the punishment of cheaters (d = .29) is not statistically significant but

can be considered to be between small and medium importance on Cohen’s d.

Supplementary analyses were conducted on age and education variables in

relation to moral-reasoning levels in the in-service teacher group. No statistical or effect-

size differences or relationships were found. This result stands in stark contrast to earlier

findings. The literature identifies several key variables that appear to influence moral

judgment among college students. Age and education level appear to be key. Thoma

(1986) found that age and education levels were the most powerful correlates to moral

reasoning, as measured by the DIT (Rest, 1979). Rest (1986) reported that despite the

strong correlation between moral judgment and age, years of formal education had the

strongest influence on moral-judgment development. In a later study, Rest (1979)

reported that age and education accounted for 38–49% of the variance in moral-judgment

scores. Rest and Thoma (1985) administered the DIT with 39 subjects while they were

enrolled in high school and then biannually after graduation over a 6-year period. The

students were divided into two groups: a “low” group comprised of students with 2 or

fewer years of formal education beyond high school and a “high” group with a minimum

of 3 years of formal education. At the time of their high school graduation, the two

groups demonstrated little difference in principled-reasoning scores (low = score of 33,

high = score of 37). Six years subsequent to graduation the low-education group

principled-reasoning score was 34.5, while the “high” group scored 51.

89

This study did not bear out those findings. A possible factor that may have

affected this outcome is that the demographic variables of age and education were

collected on the CMQ section of the survey instrument. In the studies conducted by Rest

and Thoma (1985) the demographic information was collected on the DIT. Differences

in the wording of the questions or the order of the items may have biased the

respondents’ answers. Another factor that may contribute to this discrepancy is the

relatively small sample population in the present study. These results may not be

representative of larger populations and therefore cannot be generalized.

Implications for Policy and Practice

To better understand the practical implications of these findings, we need to look

at the results in the context of Kohlberg’s (1969) framework. A significant finding is that

moral-reasoning levels, based on DIT mean scores, in in-service teachers was

significantly higher than for preservice teacher. To say that in-service teachers’ (Group

A) mean moral-reasoning score is higher than preservice teachers’ (Group B) mean

moral-reasoning score indicates that the combination of personal-interest, maintaining-

norms, and principled-reasoning levels in Group A represents a percentage of principled

thinking than is present in Group B. And yet, even though the 10-point difference is

statistically significant between the groups, it indicates only that the in-service-teacher

group preferred principled reasoning about 50% of the time. If we accept Kohlberg’s

(1969) theory that the ideals of justice should be a cornerstone in education and Dewey’s

(1916) maxim that democracy is a warranted social structure in the classroom, we need to

ask how prepared this group of teachers is to establish and maintain a classroom

environment that supports social justice and democratic participation.

90

Public school teachers are subject to an unchanging environment that is highly

regulated by social and political forces. Even the teachers in this study with relatively

high moral-reasoning scores were inclined to make judgments based on personal-interest

and maintaining-norms schema much of the time. When working in highly structured,

hierarchical institutions that encourage authoritarian practices, teachers with these levels

of reasoning will tend to perpetuate the rules and other mores of the system. According

to the Kohlbergian and neo-Kohlbergian framework, regardless of the established norms,

teachers at these levels will support the system. It is important to remember that these

data do not refer to the case of individual teachers. There may be teachers in these

populations that will take principled positions that support well-managed classrooms and

high academic standards.

Teachers can take a principled stance even when working conditions seem to be

deteriorating. In California, public high school class sizes are moving upward to 40

students per class. A full-time teaching load includes the daunting task of assessing the

work of 200 students during a given semester. These circumstances are not conducive to

developing deep and trusting relationships with students. Some of the teachers in the

present sample may have extraordinary social and pedagogic skills that can accommodate

such a heavy caseload. Some of these teachers may have the wherewithal to call upon

principled reasoning and routinely make carefully considered decisions when

implementing proactive and reactive measures to stem the problem of academic

misconduct. Unfortunately, the findings of this study seem to suggest that many teachers

will not be able to do that.

91

Recommendations for Future Research

A number of studies will compliment the current literature on best approaches to

counter plagiarism and other types of cheating. There is a need for research on character

education and the importance of moral reasoning in teacher education, as Cummings et

al. (2007) noted:

Although concerns about the moral domain of teaching have been expressed for

more than 30 years, empirical studies investigating moral reasoning in teacher

education students are sparse. Even fewer studies have investigated the

effectiveness of educational interventions to advance moral reasoning in these

students (p. 76).

A related concern has to do with the reluctance among high school and college faculty to

confront students that they suspect of cheating. McCabe (1993) reported that more than

50% of the university faculty surveyed indicated that they make little or very little effort

to document cheating infractions. In that study, McCabe found that professors were

reluctant to pursue cases of academic dishonesty because they were busy with teaching

assignments, research projects, and publishing. They feared confrontation with students,

parents, and the administration, and the possibility of litigation and burdensome hearings.

The problems that faculty is facing are compounded by an evolving digital

learning landscape where the application of traditional values associated with originality

may not always be warranted. Until recently the idea of citing original sources was fairly

straightforward. In the age of hard copy traditional publishing it was fairly easy to

establish copyright infringement. In the digital age, the notions of cut and paste

plagiarism and patchwork writing has complicated the matter. Open access and online

92

forums encourage participants to reiterate, rewrite, and refurbish published information

without acknowledging original sources. In many cases the writer doesn’t know where

the information originated.

An example of the fluidity of text in the open-access online environment is

offered in the article, Framing Plagiarism (Adler-Kassner, Anson, & Howard, 2011).

The authors investigated information exchange online by conducting a web search on

“the safe handling of food.” They were interested in public information and how it was

being used online. They came across a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

fact sheet that gave the following instructions: “Never defrost foods in a garage,

basement, car, dishwasher or plastic garbage bag; out on the kitchen counter, outdoors or

on the porch. These methods can leave your food unsafe to eat (USDA)” (p. 236). The

writers found these instructions sufficiently strange and began a search to discover the

origin of the instructions. In their quest, they found the information copied verbatim or in

slightly altered form on various websites that included universities, cooking sites, food-

manufacturing companies, and local-government domains. Some of the sites used the

information without attribution and claimed copyright on the content. Other cites

included disclaimers saying that it was the readers’ responsibility “to verify the content

for accuracy and completeness.” In one case the information appeared to be copied from

another site and was formatted as an article on the safety of eating frozen food. The story

became more complex when the authors tried to verify the origin of the USDA

information. When searching the USDA site it was impossible to find the actual text or

the name of the author. Adler-Kassner et al., wrote,

93

Other sites—Currycooking.com, people at the University of Georgia and the

University of Colorado, the Philippine cooking organization, and companies like

Corex.com, a manufacturer of Italian pastas—also could be the likely author of

this text, but they variously claim or disclaim ownership, fiddle with the text or

leave it as it is, and in all cases embed it within the rhetorical, informational, and

pragmatic goals of their organization. (pp. 237–238)

In the article, The Dynamic Nature of Common Knowledge, England (2011)

discussed a research project that investigated the use of source material in college essays.

The principal investigator was reading though essays and came across an anecdote about

a union strike that had become violent. In the course of trying to ascertain whether the

anecdote was plagiarized or patch-written, England found four different online versions

of the story that were attributed to the same wire service. The author wondered, “Did that

count as four sources or as one?” (p. 105). This type of journalism must surely confound

instructors who are used to a fixed text and a hard copy-notion plagiarism.

Since the mid 20th century literary theorists have studied the ambiguity of the

author–reader function. In the 1960s Barthes contended that the text represented more

than intentionality, that it was loaded with generations of multiple writings on social,

cultural, familial, and intellectual narratives. This thinking concurred with the critical

literary concept of The Death of the Author. Barthes envisioned the author function

roughly equivalent to that of the messenger; the originality of the message was more

difficult to ascertain. In postmodern literary theory, the immediacy of the reader’s

understanding became paramount. The author and the fixed text were relegated to

secondary status. In the digital environment some of the more problematic aspects of that

94

theory are actualized in an environment where text is rapidly composed and recomposed.

Differentiating between author and reader and between paraphrasing and plagiarism

becomes an arduous if not impossible task. Open access forums such as wikis allow for

the creation and editing of interlinked web pages via a web browser. Wikis nurture and

stimulate this newly homogenized literacy and attribute credit to entire communities of

author and readers. Research is needed that explores the limits of public knowledge,

copyright conventions, and the fair use of the Internet.

Another study with a narrower scope can build on the present study by

disaggregating moral reasoning and attitudinal data according to school districts. That

study could investigate the relationship between variables such as socioeconomic status,

class size, and median household income. An interesting theoretical shift would be to

include a qualitative component that focuses on the participants’ subjective sensibilities

and opinions about the issues surrounding cheating, and how they manage the problem in

their specific context. Finally, a correlational study that considers the relationship

between the DIT maintaining-norms schema and socially desirable response using an

instrument such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale would be useful

(Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).

Final Remarks

During the past decade the problem of high school and college cheating has been

become a passionate issue. It seems that a broad swath of the general public has a vested

interest in the topic. Dr. Fish (2010), a retired college professor and academic dean,

published an editorial column in The New York Times on August 9 entitled, “Plagiarism

Is Not a Big Moral Deal.” The following is an excerpt from that article:

95

If you’re a student, plagiarism will seem to be an annoying guild imposition

without a persuasive rationale (who cares?); for students, learning the rules of

plagiarism is worse than learning the irregular conjugations of a foreign language.

… It follows that students who never quite get the concept right are by and large

not committing a crime; they are just failing to become acclimated to the

conventions. (Fish, 2010, p. 12)

Within 48 hours of publication, the article elicited 638 reader responses. Some

respondents were in agreement, others in disagreement, but they were largely written

with vehemence and even vitriol. The respondents were evenly distributed across

professions and academic specialties.

At a time when students report being overly busy and stressed, the option to cheat

is tempting, simplified by the expediency of the Internet. Saenz’ publication on the

problem of cheating exposes the range and scope of academic misconduct. In this case

the problem had little to do with students, Saenz (2011) wrote, “Students, of course,

aren’t the only ones who feel the pressure to cheat. Teachers do, too. Popular books like

Freakonomics have highlighted the ways in which teachers may alter student’s test scores

to improve their own assessment ratings (p. 16).

When institutions are identified as having committed unethical behaviors, they are

subject to societal disapproval. If the actions are illegal, the problem is litigated in court.

When students take shortcuts in disseminating information, it is the teacher who controls

the exchange. It is the teacher who decides where the limitations are, and it is the teacher

who allocates time to staunch the problem. In the current economic climate, a number of

factors conspire against careful monitoring and intervention. In California, as in other

96

states, class size is increasing while resources are being reduced. The increase in

student–teacher ratios corresponds to a decrease in the amount of time teachers can

dedicate to assessing the originality of student work.

Apprehending cheaters is an arduous process. The teacher must accuse the

student of wrongdoing and follow-up on the accusations. To facilitate that process, an

industry of PDS came onto the market that identify plagiarized work. PDS match newly

submitted work to a massive corpus of previously submitted work and published texts.

The system is a timesaver for teachers and has proven to be an effective deterrent to the

unauthorized use of published materials, but a number of negatives are associated with

the systems. PDS do not detect customized papers. The customized-paper industry hires

full-time ghostwriters and employs sophisticated antiplagiarism detection services to

preempt detection.

Another problem is false-positive matches. False matches can produce

accusations against the instructor and sully both the teacher’s and student’s reputations.

Possibly the most glaring problem with PDS is the presumption of guilt before

malfeasance. The underlying message strikes many as “guilty until proven innocent.”

With those negative aspects in mind, PDS can serve a circumscribed role when used in

accordance with other interventions in a broader program that supports a culture of

academic integrity. Wilhoit (1994) lists interventions that compliment the use of PDS.

These include,

• Defining and discussing plagiarism in class and online

• Discussing hypothetical cases

• Teaching proper notetaking skills

97

• Reviewing the conventions for documenting sources

• Requiring multiple drafts of essays and reports

• Requiring students to submit photocopies of documented material

• Providing proofreading and collaboration guidelines.

Establishing trust between student and teacher is key to successful prevention. On the

basis of trust, a personal contract emerges. The terms may be that the teacher treats the

student fairly and makes a commitment to provide engaging lessons. The student

dedicates a chunk of time to attend classes, to master course content, and to earn a grade.

Dedication and obligation based on trust can detoxify the murky waters of mistrust

between faculty and student.

In order to sustain a trusting classroom environment where students uphold the

principles of academic integrity, a system of checks and balances needs to be in place.

Emmer, Evertson, and Anderson (1980) studied classrooms that were conducive to

academic integrity and determined that starting the school year with clearly defined

expectations and procedures resulted in fewer incidents of cheating and disruption. They

found that successful teaching and learning took place when teachers developed trusting

relations with their students. Based on those findings a fairly strong consensus of opinion

emerged regarding the principles of effective classroom management. The principles

were (a) the importance of setting and maintaining high social and academic

expectations; (b) the establishment of clear rules, procedures, and consequences; (c) the

reinforcement of rules, procedures, and consequences through verbal and tangible

rewards; and (d) the implementation of instructional activities that maximized student

98

engagement and accountability (Brophy, 1986). The teacher establishes and maintains

the rules while acting as a role model and an example who exemplifies good behavior.

Fenstermacher (1975) wrote, “The teacher’s conduct, at all times and in all ways,

is a moral one” (p. 133). Teachers are the arbitrators of moral conduct in the classroom.

During the final decades of the 20th century a substantial amount of scholarship focused

attention on the moral nature of teaching. In more recent years, teacher-education

programs have placed greater emphasis on educational ethics and character education

(Campbell, 2008). Case studies and moral dilemma discussions have become standard

curriculum in teacher-training coursework. The National Council for the Accreditation of

Teacher Education and the CCTC have enacted teacher-performance expectations on

professional integrity and ethical awareness. These trends are important steps in the

process of preparing teachers to set high academic standards and to hold their students

accountable for doing honest academic work. The process will be furthered as

comprehensive programs are designed and implemented, and foster schoolwide cultures

that discourage cheating and reward academic integrity.

99

References

Academic Writing Help.com (2011). Academic writing help services. Retrieved from

http://www.academicwritinghelp.net

Adler-Kassner, L., Anson, C. M., & Howard, R. M. (2011). Flaming plagiarism. In C.

Eisner & M. Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, imitation and plagiarism: Teaching

writing in the digital age (pp. 231–244). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Arnold, D., & Ponemon, L. (1991). Internal auditors’ perceptions of whistle-blowing and

the influence of moral reasoning: An experiment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &

Theory, 10(2), 1–15.

Bagley, W. (1907). Classroom management. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image-music-text (S. Heath, Trans.,

pp. 142–148). London, UK: Fontana.

Bauman, M. G. (2009). CSI: plagiarism. Chronicle for Higher Education, 56(7), B20.

Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/CSI-Plagiarism/48645/

Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model:

Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 271–

295.

Bebeau, M. J. (2010, June). The four component model of morality. Paper presented at the

American Bar Association associate dean’s conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (2003). Guide for DIT-2. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

100

Benenson Strategy Group. (2008). Cell phones and cheating in schools: A national poll.

Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/18/earlyshow/leisure

/gamesgadgetsgizmos/main5095179.shtml

Brandman University. (2009). Course catalog. Retrieved from http://www.brandman

.edu/catalog/

Breed, F. (1933). Classroom organization and management. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:

World Book Company.

Brophy, J. (1986). Classroom management techniques. Education and Urban Society, 18,

182–194.

Brown, E. (1952). Managing the classroom: The teacher’s part in school administration.

New York, NY: Ronald Press.

Campbell, E. (2008). Teaching ethically as a moral condition of professionalism. In D.

Narváez & L. Nucci (Eds.), International handbook of moral and character

education (pp. 601–617). New York, NY: Routledge.

Center for Academic Integrity (1999). The fundamental values of academic integrity.

Retrieved from http://www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental_values_project

/pdf/FVProject.pdf

Center for Academic Integrity. (2011). Retrieved March 6, 2011 from The Center for

Academic Integrity website http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai research.asp

Chang, F. (1994). School teacher’s moral reasoning. In J. R. Rest & D. Narváez (Eds.),

Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 71–

84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

101

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment Vol. 2: Standard

issue scoring manual. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

Cummings, R., Dyas, L., Maddux, C. D., & Kochman, A. (2001). Principled moral

reasoning and behavior of preservice teacher education students. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 143–158.

Cummings, R., Harlow, S., & Maddux, C. D. (2007). Moral reasoning of in-service and

pre-service teachers: A review of the research. Journal of Moral Education, 36,

67–78.

Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D., Harlow, S., & Dyas, L. (2002). Academic misconduct in

undergraduate teacher education students and its relationship to their principled

moral reasoning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 286–298.

Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D., Maples, M. F. & Torres-Rivera, E. (2004). Principled

moral reasoning of students in education and counseling. Change &

Transformations in Education, 1, 17–30.

Daniel, L. G., Blount, K. D., & Ferrell, C. M. (1991). Academic misconduct among

teacher education students: A descriptive-correlational study. Research in Higher

Education, 32, 703–724.

102

Dant, D. R. (1986). Plagiarism in high school: A survey. English Journal, 75(2), 81–85.

Derryberry, W. P., Snyder, H., Wilson, T., & Barger, B. (2006). Moral judgment

differences in education and liberal arts majors: Cause for concern? Journal of

College & Character, 70(4), 1–8.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dewey. J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Williams, L. E., Francis, B., & Haines, V. J.

(1996). College cheating: Ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 37,

487–502.

Diessner, R. (1991, November). Teacher education for democratic classrooms: Moral

reasoning and ideology critique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for Moral Education, Athens, GA.

Drinan, P. (1999). Loyalty, learning, & academic integrity. Liberal Education, 85(1), 28–

33.

Durkheim, E. (1973). Moral education (E. K. Wilson & H. Schnurer, Trans.). New York,

NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1925).

Educational Testing Service. (1999). Cheating is a personal foul. The ETS Ad Council

campaign to discourage academic cheating. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Emerson, R. W. (2010). Selected journals: 1820–1842. New York, NY: Library of

America.

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M., (1980). Effective classroom

management at the beginning of the school year. Elementary School Journal, 80,

219–231.

103

EncyclopediaBritannica.com. (2011). Wiki. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com

/EBchecked/topic/1192819/wiki

Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L. (1978). Productivity and scholarly

impact. American Psychologist, 33, 1064–1082.

England, A. (2011). The dynamic nature of common knowledge. In C. Eisner & M.

Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, imitation and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the

digital age (pp. 231–244). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ercegovac, Z., & Richardson, J. V., Jr. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism

included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries,

65, 301–318.

Evertson C. M., & Weinstein C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of classroom management:

Research, practice and contemporary issues. London, UK: Erlbaum.

E World Publishing. (2001). Paper Masters. Retrieved from http://www.papermasters

.com/real.html

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1975). Reconsidering the reconstruction of teacher education.

Texas Tech Journal of Education, 2(2), 107–117.

Ferrell, C. M., & Daniel, L. G. (1995). A frame of reference for understanding behaviors

related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students.

Research in Higher Education, 36, 345–375.

Fish, S. (2010). Plagiarism is not a big moral deal. Retrieved from http://opinionator

.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/

Flanagan, O., & Jackson, K. (1987). Justice, care, and gender: The Kohlberg-Gilligan

debate revisited. Ethics, 97, 622–637.

104

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in

education (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Freeman, S. J. M., & Giebink. J. W. (1979). Moral judgment as a function of age, sex,

and stimulus. Journal of Psychology, 102, 43–47.

Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A

questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 687–

704.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and of

morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481–571.

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci , N. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and

similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223–237.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). The occupation of teaching in schools. In J. I. Goodlad, R. Soder,

& K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 3–34). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of

effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluation online courses. Retrieved from

http://technologysource.org/article/seven_principles_of_effective_teaching/

Green, T. E. (1999). Voices. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Grijalva, T., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses.

College Student Journal, 40, 180–185.

105

Groark, M., Oblinger, D., & Choa, M. (2001). Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism tools,

and academic integrity. Educause Review, 36(5), 40–48. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0153.pdf

Guthrie, B. L., King, P. M., & Palmer, C. J. (2000). Higher education and reducing

prejudice: Research on cognitive capabilities underlying tolerance, Diversity

Digest, 4(3), 10–23.

Howard, R. M. 1999. Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, and

collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Hunter, J. D. (2000). The death of character. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Johnson, L. E. (2008). Teacher candidate disposition: Moral judgement or regurgitation?

Journal of Moral Education, 37, 429–444.

Johnston, M., & Lubomudrov, C. (1987). Teachers’ level of moral reasoning and their

understanding of classroom rules and roles. Elementary School Journal, 88, 65–

78.

Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2010). Report card on the ethics of American youth.

Retrieved from http://josephsoninstitute.org/surveys/index.html

Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2008). Report card on the ethics of American youth.

Retrieved from http://josephsoninstitute.org/surveys/index.html

Joy, D. (1986). Some critical adaptations for Judeo-Christian communities. In S. Modgil

& C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy (pp. 401–

413). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

106

Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., Raghuraman, R., Thomas, J., & Davis, S. F. (2000). Academic

dishonesty and distance learning: Student and faculty views. College Student

Journal, 34, 309–314.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years

10 to 16 (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations (UMI No.

3327832)

Kohlberg, L. (1967). Moral and religious education and the public schools: A

developmental view. In Sizer, T. (Ed.), Religion and public education. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), The handbook of socialization theory and

research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). (1981). Essays on moral development. New York, NY: Harper and

Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: Essays on moral

development. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development. Theory into Practice, 16, 53–

59.

Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. N.Y.: Holt

Rinehart and Winston.

Kounin, J. S., & Gump, T. (1958). The ripple effect in discipline. Elementary School

Journal, 35, 158–162.

107

LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Haines, V. J., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1990). Situational ethics

and college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190–198.

Landsman, M., & McNeel, S. (2004). Moral judgments of law students across three

years: Influence of gender, political ideology and interest in altruistic law

practice. South Texas Law Review, 45, 892–915.

Langlais, P. J. (2006). Ethics for the next generation. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

52(19), B11.

Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice

Education, 17, 244–261.

Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor–implications for academic

staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 183–199.

Leming, J. (1978). Intrapersonal variations in stages of moral reasoning among

adolescents as a function of situational context. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 7, 405–416.

Lickona, T. (1998). Character education: Seven crucial issues. Action in Teacher

Education, 20(4), 77–84.

Lickona, T. (2004). Character education: Seven crucial issues. Action in Teacher

Education, 20(4), 77–84.

Love, P. & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among

graduate students in a college of education. College Student Journal, 32, 539–

551.

108

Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An

investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 49, 1016–1027.

Martin, R. M., Shafto, M., & Vandeinse, W. (1977). Developmental Psychology, 13,

460–468.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2007). Academic integrity: Using the Internet as

a source. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/academicintegrity/citing/internet.html

Mathison, C. (1998). How teachers feel about character education: A descriptive study.

Action in Teacher Education, 20(4), 29–38.

McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of

student honor codes. Research in Higher Education, 34, 647–658.

McCabe, D.L.(1999). Academic dishonesty among high school students.

Adolescence, 34, 681-87

McCabe, D. L. (2001). Why students do it and how we can help them stop. Retrieved

from http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/winter2001/mccabe.cfm

McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty and educational

opportunity. Liberal Education. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org

/liberaleducation/le-sufa05/le-sufa05feature2.cfm

McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among male college

students: A 30-year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 3–

10.

109

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in

graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 5, 294–305.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other

contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–538.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college:

Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28(1), 28–33.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic

institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219–232.

Michaels, J., & Miethe, T. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating.

Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870–885.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1992). Culture and moral judgment: How are conflicts

between justice and interpersonal relationships resolved? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 62, 541–554.

Morgan, P., & Vaughn, J. (2010). The case of the pilfered paper: Implications of online

writing assistance and web-based plagiarism detection services. PS, Political

Science & Politics, 43, 755–758.

Nadelson, S. (2007). Academic misconduct by university students: faculty perspectives and

responses. Plagiary, 2(2), 1-19.

Narvaez, D., & Bock, T. (2002). Moral schemas and tacit judgment or how the Defining

Issues Test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education, 31,

297–314.

110

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards

for accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington,

DC: Author. Retrieved from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache

:y0Riip6G1lgJ:www.ncate.org/

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (Eds.). (2006). Classroom authority: Theory, research, and

practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Park, C. (2002). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—Literature

and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 471–488.

Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the power of association on campus: A model code of

academic integrity. Journal of College and University Law, 24, 97–118.

Payne, S., & Nantz, K. (1994). Social accounts and metaphors about cheating. College

Teaching, 42, 90–96.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London, UK: Routledge.

Ponemon, L. A. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 239–258.

Ponemon, L. A., & Gabhart, D. R. L. (1994). Ethical reasoning research in the accounting

and auditing professions. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development

in the professions: psychology and applied ethics (pp. 101–120). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

111

Power, L. (2009). University students’ perception of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher

Education, 80, 643–662.

Pulvers, K., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty

and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education, 40, 487–499.

Rabi, S. M., Patton, L. R., Fjortoft, N., & Zgarrick, D. P. (2006). Characteristics,

prevalence, attitudes, and perceptions of academic dishonesty among pharmacy

students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70, A1–A8.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reiman, A., & Johnson, L. E. (2003). Teacher professional judgment. Journal of

Research in Education, 13(1), 4–17.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY:

Praeger.

Rest, J. R., & Narvaez D. (1994). (Eds.), Moral development in the professions:

Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral

thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rest, J., & Thoma, S. (1985). Relation of moral judgment development to formal

education. Developmental Psychology, 21, 709–714.

112

Richmond, K. (2001). Ethical reasoning, Machiavellian behavior, and gender: The impact

on accounting students’ ethical decision making (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04252001-131758

/unrestricted/richmond.pdf.prn.pdf

Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been

plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47(1), 113–123.

Roig, M., & Caso, M. (2005). Lying and cheating: Fraudulent excuse making, cheating,

and plagiarism. Journal of Psychology, 139, 485–494.

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Trumbull, E., Isaac, A., Daley, C., & Perez, A. I. (2003). When

“helping someone else” is the right answer: Bridging cultures in assessment.

Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 123–140.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive

guide to content and process (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1999). Building character in schools. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Saenz, A. (2011). Catching students (and teachers) who cheat in the 21st century. The

New York Times. Retrieved from http://singularityhub.com/2011/catching-

students-and-teachers-who-cheat

Scanlon, P. M., & Neumann, D. R. (2002). Internet plagiarism among college students.

Journal of College Student Development, 43, 374–385.

Stavisky, L. P. (1973). Term paper “mills,” academic plagiarism, and state regulation.

Political Science Quarterly, 88, 445–461.

113

Stevenson, M. (2001). Adventures in cheating: A guide to buying term papers online.

Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/2059540

Strike, K. A., & Ternasky, P. L. (Eds.). (1993). Ethics for professionals in education:

Perspectives for preparation and practices. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat:

Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1–10.

Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: Individual

propensities in cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 467–477.

Thoma, S. J. (1986). Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference

of moral Issues. Developmental Review, 6, 165–180.

Thoma, S. J. (2002). An overview of the Minnesota approach to research in moral

development. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 225–246.

Thoma, S. J. (2006). Research using the defining issues test. In M. Killen & J. Smetana

(Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 67–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A casual analysis

of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–

385.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2006). Is information and communication technology

fuelling academic dishonesty? Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 180–199.

114

Vojak, C. (2007). What market culture teaches students about ethical behavior. Ethics

and Education, 1, 177–195.

Walker, L. J. (1988). The development of moral reasoning. Annals of Child Development,

5, 33–78.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R., Hennig, K., & Matsuba, K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and

real-life moral problems. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life:

Developmental perspectives (pp. 371–407). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

West, T., Ravenscroft, S. P., & Shrader C. B. (2004). Cheating and moral judgment in the

college classroom: A natural experiment, Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 173–

183.

Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A

review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–273.

Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wickman, E. (1928). Children’s behavior and teachers attitudes. New York, NY: The

Commonwealth Fund.

Wilhoit, S. (1994). Helping students avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42, 161–165.

Wilson, R. (1999) Colleges urged to better define academic integrity and to stress its

importance, Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 October, 46 (8), p. A18.

Wygant, S. A. (1997). Moral reasoning about real-life dilemmas: Paradox in research

using the defining issues. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1022–

1033.

115

Yeazell, M. I., & Johnson, S. F. (1988). Levels of moral judgment of faculty and students

in a teacher education program: A micro study of an institution, Teacher

Education Quarterly, 15(1), 61–70.

116

Appendix A

Sample Defining Issues Test Item

In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money on it.” So Heinz got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz steal the drug? __Should Steal __Can’t Decide __Should not steal

Please rate the following statements in terms of their importance.

(1 = Great importance, 2 = Much importance, 3 = Some Importance, 4 = Little importance, 5 = No importance)

__1. Whether a community’s laws are going to be upheld.

__2. Isn’t it only natural for a loving husband to care so much for his wife that he’d steal?

__3. Is Heinz willing to risk getting shot as a burglar or going to jail for the chance that stealing the drug might help?

__4. Whether Heinz is a professional wrestler, or had considerable influence with professional wrestlers.

__5. Whether Heinz is stealing for himself or doing this solely to help someone else.

__6. Whether the druggist’s rights to his invention have to be respected.

__7. Whether the essence of living is more encompassing than the termination of dying, socially and individually.

__8. What values are going to be the basis for governing how people act towards each other.

__9. Whether the druggist is going to be allowed to hide behind a worthless law, which only protects the rich anyhow.

__10. Whether the law in the case is getting in the way of the most basic claim of any member of society.

__11. Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed for being so greedy and cruel.

117

__12. Would stealing in such a case bring about more total good for the whole society or not.

Now please rank the top four most important statements. Put the number of the statement in the blank:

__ Most important item __ Second most important item __ Third most important item __ Fourth most important item

University of Minnesota (Copyright, James Rest, 1979)

118

Appendix B

Participation Request Email

Dear Mr. Doe: My name is Michael Glaser. I am a doctoral student in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco and an instructor at Ygnacio Valley High School, MDUSD in Concord, CA. and at Brandman University in Walnut Creek. I am conducting a research study on preservice and in-service high school teachers understanding of the problem of academic dishonesty at the secondary school level. I am interested in learning about the relationship between the teacher’s cognitive moral reasoning and their attitudes toward dealing with academic dishonesty. You are being asked to participate in this research study because you are enrolled in a single-subject credentialing program or are a high school teacher in the East Bay. If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey. The survey asks you to rate position statements about ethical dilemmas and asks for your opinion about academic dishonesty in general. To participate in the study, you will need to complete the survey within 10 days. It is possible that some of the questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You are free to decline to answer any questions you do not wish to answer. You will not be asked to put your name on the survey. Any information submitted on the survey, and your participation will be kept confidential. No individual identities will be used in any reports or publications resulting from the study. Study information will be coded and kept in locked files. Only study personnel will have access to the files. Individual results will not be shared with any person, college or organization. While there will be no guaranteed direct benefit to you from participating in this study, the anticipated benefit of this study is a better understanding of how secondary teachers will manage the problem of academic dishonesty in the classrooms. There will be no costs to you as a result of taking part in this study, nor will you be reimbursed for your participation in this study. If you have questions, you may contact me at glasermg@hotmail.com. Further questions can be directed to the IRBPHS at the University of San Francisco. You may reach the IRBPHS office by calling (415) 422-6091, by e-mailing IRBPHS@usfca.edu, or by writing to the IRBPHS, Department of Counseling Psychology, Education Bldg., University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080. PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. You are free to decline to be in this study or to withdraw from it at any point.

119

Sincerely, Michael Glaser Doctoral Student, University of San Francisco

120

Appendix C

Participation Reminder Email

Dear Mr. Doe: My name is Michael Glaser and I am a doctoral student in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco. Last week I sent you an email regarding a study I am doing on academic dishonest at the secondary level. I am interested in learning about I am interested in learning about the relationship between the teacher’s cognitive moral reasoning and their attitudes toward dealing with academic dishonesty in the (future) classrooms. You are being asked to participate in this research study because you are enrolled in the single-subject credentialing program at Brandman. I noticed that you have not completed the survey yet. If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to online survey. The survey asks about your academic, personal and social expectations of college. To participate in the study, you will need to complete the survey within 10 days. Please click on the link below to begin the survey. PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. You are free to decline to be in this study, or to withdraw from it at any point. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Michael Glaser Doctoral Student University of San Francisco

121

Appendix D

Consent Cover Letter

Michael Glaser

Doctoral Student

INFORMED CONSENT FORM UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Purpose and Background My name is Michael Glaser. I am a doctoral student in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco and an instructor at Brandman University. I am doing a study on preservice teachers understanding of the problem of academic dishonesty at the secondary school level. Research has shown that increased exposure to the Internet supports a willingness to engage in plagiarism. There is a growing concern that computer-mediated study will continue to diminish the sanctity of protected material. The misuse of published and copyrighted material has become convenient and commonplace. As the cost of technology decreases and information access increases, the problem of academic dishonesty will become an even greater concern for researchers, faculty, policy makers and administrators. I am interested in learning about the relationship between the teacher’s cognitive moral reasoning and their attitudes toward dealing with academic dishonesty in their (future) classrooms. As a participant I am being asked to participate because I am a single-subject credentialing student at Brandman University. Procedures If I agree to be a participant in this study, the following will happen:

1. I will complete a questionnaire dealing with the issue of academic misconduct, lasting approximately 5-10 minutes.

2. I will complete a survey that asks me to rate and rank responses to a series of moral dilemmas lasting approximately 20 minutes.

Confidentiality:

1. I will identify myself by the ID provided by the researcher. 2. Though I will not be asked to provide my name, participation in research may

mean a loss of my confidentiality. 3. I understand the researcher will keep my records as confidential as is possible. 4. My identity will not be used in any reports or publications resulting from the

study. 5. I understand the researcher will keep study information secure in locked files.

This will include the demographic questionnaire, and the moral dilemma survey. Only the researcher will have access to the files.

6. Individual results will not be shared with personnel of my institute. Risks and/or Discomforts

122

1. It is possible that some of the questions in the demographic questionnaire, interview, or the moral dilemma survey may make me feel uncomfortable, but I am free to decline to answer any questions I do not wish to answer or to stop participation at any time.

2. I may also seek further assistance by contacting 3. Because the time required for my participation may be up to 1 hour, I may

become tired or bored. Benefits There will be no direct benefit to me from participating in this study. The anticipated benefit of this study is a better understanding of the current body of knowledge regarding preserves teachers’ awareness of academic dishonesty at the secondary level. It is further anticipated this study will benefit credentialing programs by investigating moral reasoning and providing moral frameworks during the credentialing process. All individuals who complete the DIT and the CMQ and provide their contact information will be included in a drawing for a $15 gift card. Twenty cards will be awarded. In order to enter the drawing, please include your contact information in the text box below. The Office of Institutional Research will notify winners, who will be randomly selected in the drawing by the end of the spring 2011 semester. Payment/Reimbursement I will not be reimbursed for my participation in this study. If I have questions about the study, I may call Mr. directly. If I have further questions or comments about participation in this study, I may contact the IRBPHS, which is concerned with protection of volunteers in research projects. I may reach the IRBPHS office by calling (415) 422-6091 and leaving a voicemail message, by e-mailing IRBPHS@usfca.edu, or by writing to the IRBPHS, Department of Psychology, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080. Consent I have been given a copy of the “Research Subject’s Bill of Rights” and I have been given a copy of this consent form to keep. PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. I am free to decline to be in this study, or to withdraw from it at any point. My decision as to whether or not to participate in this study will have no influence on my present or future status as a single subject-credentialing candidate at Brand Man University. My signature below indicates that I agree to participate in this study.

___________________________________ ____________

Subject’s Signature Date

123

Appendix E

Information Sheet

Michael Glaser Doctoral Student

INFORMATION SHEET ABOUT THE RESEARCH STUDY

My name is Michael Glaser. I am a doctoral student in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco and an instructor at Brandman University. I am doing a study on preservice and in-service teachers’ understanding of the problem of academic dishonesty at the secondary school level. Researchers have found that increased exposure to the Internet supports a willingness to engage in plagiarism. There is a growing concern that computer-mediated study will continue to diminish the sanctity of protected material. The misuse of published and copyrighted material has become convenient and commonplace. As the cost of technology decreases and information access increases, the problem of academic dishonesty will become an even greater concern for researchers, faculty, policy makers and administrators. I am interested in learning about the relationship between the teacher’s cognitive moral reasoning and their attitudes toward dealing with academic dishonesty in their (future) classrooms. You are being asked to participate in this research study because you are enrolled in the single-subject credentialing program at Brandman University or a credentialed teacher working at a high school site in the Bay area. If you agree to be in this study, you will complete and submit an on-line survey on an encrypted web-based secure database server. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. This study is considered minimal risk to the participant. Some of the questions on the survey may make you feel uncomfortable, but you are free to decline to answer any questions you do not wish to answer, or to stop participation at any time. Although you will not be asked to put your name on the survey, participation in research may mean a loss of confidentiality. Your responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used. However, no absolute guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data. No individual identities will be used in any reports or publications resulting from the study. Survey data will be maintained on an encrypted web-based secure database server. The researcher will be unable to remove anonymous data from the database should the participant wish to withdraw it. Within 30 days after the study is completed, the researcher will delete the data, and it will be permanently removed after the last backup cycle is completed. Individual results will not be shared with personnel of your institute. There will be no direct benefit to you from participating in this study. The anticipated benefit of this study is a better understanding of the current body of knowledge about program development and academic integrity at the secondary level.

124

There will be no costs to you as a result of taking part in this study, nor will you be reimbursed for your participation in this study. If you have questions about the research, you may contact me directly. If you have further questions about the study, you may contact the IRBPHS at the University of San Francisco, which is concerned with protection of volunteers in research projects. You may reach the IRBPHS office by calling (415) 422-6091 and leaving a voicemail message; by e-mailing IRBPHS@usfca.edu; or by writing to the IRBPHS, Department of Psychology, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080. PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. You are free to decline to be in this study, or to withdraw from it at any point. California State University Sacramento, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies is aware of this study but does not require that you participate in this research and your decision as to whether or not to participate will have no influence on your present or future status as an alumni of the Urban Leadership Program. By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in the research.

125

Appendix F

Research Subjects’ Bill of Rights

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO CONSENT TO BE A RESEARCH SUBJECT

The rights below are the rights of every person who is asked to be in a research study. As a research subject, I have the following rights:

1. To be told the extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the

subject will be maintained and of the possibility that specified individuals, internal and external regulatory agencies, or study sponsors may inspect information in the medical record specifically related to participation in the clinical trial.

2. To be told of any benefits that may reasonably be expected from the research. 3. To be told of any reasonably foreseeable discomforts or risks. 4. To be told of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment that

might be of benefit to the subject. 5. To be told of the procedures to be followed during the course of participation,

especially those that is experimental in nature. 6. To be told that they may refuse to participate (participation is voluntary), and

that declining to participate will not compromise access to services and will not result in penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled.

7. To be told about compensation and medical treatment if research related injury occurs and where further information may be obtained when participating in research involving more than minimal risk.

8. To be told whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research, about the research subjects’ rights and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject.

9. To be told of anticipated circumstances under which the investigator without regard to the subject’s consent may terminate the subject’s participation.

10. To be told of any additional costs to the subject that may result from participation in the research.

11. To be told of the consequences of a subjects’ decision to withdraw from the research and procedures for orderly termination of participation by the subject.

12. To be told that significant new findings developed during the course of the research that may relate to the subject’s willingness to continue participation will be provided to the subject.

13. To be told the approximate number of subjects involved in the study. 14. To be told what the study is trying to find out; 15. To be told what will happen to me and whether any of the procedures, drugs,

or devices are different from what would be used in standard practice;

126

16. To be told about the frequent and/or important risks, side effects, or discomforts of the things that will happen to me for research purposes;

17. To be told if I can expect any benefit from participating, and, if so, what the benefit might be;

18. To be told of the other choices I have and how they may be better or worse than being in the study; To be allowed to ask any questions concerning the study both before agreeing to be involved and during the course of the study;

19. To be told what sort of medical or psychological treatment is available if any complications arise;

20. To refuse to participate at all or to change my mind about participation after the study is started; if I were to make such a decision, it will not affect my right to receive the care or privileges I would receive if I were not in the study;

21. To receive a copy of the signed and dated consent form; and 22. To be free of pressure when considering whether I wish to agree to be in the

study. If I have other questions, I should ask the researcher. In addition, I may contact the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRBPHS), which is concerned with protection of volunteers in research projects. I may reach the IRBPHS by calling (415) 422-6091, by electronic mail at IRBPHS@usfca.edu, or by writing to USF IRBPHS, Department of Counseling Psychology, Education Building, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080.

127

Appendix G IRBPHS—University of San Francisco

Approval Letter February 8, 2011 Dear Michael Glaser: The Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRBPHS) at the University of San Francisco (USF) has reviewed your request for human subjects approval regarding your study. Your application has been approved by the committee (IRBPHS #11-008). Please note the following: 1. Approval expires twelve (12) months from the dated noted above. At that time, if you are still in collecting data from human subjects, you must file a renewal application. 2. Any modifications to the research protocol or changes in instrumentation (including wording of items) must be communicated to the IRBPHS. Re-submission of an application may be required at that time. 3. Any adverse reactions or complications on the part of participants must be reported (in writing) to the IRBPHS within ten (10) working days. If you have any questions, please contact the IRBPHS at (415) 422-6091. On behalf of the IRBPHS committee, I wish you much success in your research. Sincerely, Terence Patterson, EdD, ABPP Chair, Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects -------------------------------------------------- IRBPHS – University of San Francisco Counseling Psychology Department Education Building – Room 017 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 (415) 422-6091 (Message) irbphs@usfca.edu

128

Appendix H

IRBPHS—Brandman University Approval Letter

129

Appendix I

Center for the Study of Ethical Development

Approval Letter

Dear Mr. Glaser, 5/9/11 Dr. T__ wrote, “The invoice indicates the permission for the researcher to use the DIT”. Sincerely yours, _________________________ Office for the Study of Ethical Development 305a Carmichael Hall BOX 870231 The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

130

Appendix J

Tables J1–J4

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analysis of Variance

Table J1

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analysis of Variance for Age on Reasoning,

Punishment, and Preventative

20–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61 >

Scale p M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F

Rea 45.29 15.61 45.26 20.80 47.69 19.37 39.38 18.26 36.67 20.61 1.17 .32

Pun 3.60 .66 3.59 .60 3.51 .63 3.52 .64 3.50 .72 .13 .97

Pre 3.32 .29 3.40 .44 3.24 .32 3.2 .38 3.42 .39 1.05 .39 Note. Rea = Reasoning; Pun = Punishment; Pre = Preventative.

Table J2

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analysis of Variance for Education on

Reasoning, Punishment, and Preventative

BA BATC MA Ed MA Other Doctorate

Scale M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F p

Rea 46.38 16.21 43.23 18.92 43.38 17.56 45.26 20.74 44.17 27.87 .12 .98

Pun 4.00 .00 3.49 .66 3.68 .55 3.38 .70 4.00 .00 1.81 .36

Pre 3.35 .34 3.26 .38 3.35 .35 3.34 .39 3.41 .12 .50 .73 Note. Rea = Reasoning; Pun = Punishment; Pre = Preventative; BATC = Bachelor’s Degree plus Teaching Credential.

131

Table J3

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analysis of Variance for Years Teaching on

Reasoning, Punishment, and Preventative

1–1 2–3 4–6 7–15 16 >

Scale p M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F

Rea 42.78 20.09 37.62 20.19 46.22 16.02 44.09 19.15 45.89 19.59 .55 .70

Pun 3.56 .67 3.48 .66 3.55 .59 3.52 .67 3.65 .58 .25 .91

Pre 3.17 .43 3.42 .27 3.49 .27 3.24 .39 3.34 .35 1.10 .36 Note. Rea = Reasoning; Pun = Punishment; Pre = Preventative.

Table J4

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analysis of Variance for Subject Taught on

Reasoning, Punishment, and Preventative

English Mathematics Science Social studies Other

Scale p M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F

Rea 45.65 19.69 50.79 18.12 40.93 20.28 46.40 19.01 40.80 16.39 1.04 .39

Pun 3.65 .61 3.49 .52 3.40 .68 3.53 .59 3.61 .72 .71 .5

Pre 3.29 .40 3.25 .33 3.35 .41 3.34 .33 3.34 .32 .31 .87 Note. Rea = Reasoning; Pun = Punishment; Pre = Preventative.